Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 4

Wrong information taught in grammar school?

Resolved

 – When you grow up you think for yourself. Before then people try and help you along. Re-ask if there's a factual point you're curious about. Shadowjams (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey all. I understand that sometimes you might tell children things that are simplifications or just wrong because it would take too long to explain otherwise, or the teacher doesn't understand it him/herself. I remember when I was in elementary school they told me pi=3.14, e=2.7 and people thought the world was flat in Columbus' day. But why do people also tell students things that are untrue, but not simplifications? {EDIT] OK, I thought of a better example (you can see the original @). I remember in fifth grade we were taught that communism is all bad and evil, and its dogma advocates killing everyone who does not agree and forcing people to work on collectives and taking everyone's property so that the corrupt governers can be rich. This naturally brought up the question, then why did people support it and even vote for it? In high school, we learned that communism actually advocates creating a perfect society where the public owns everything and works for the good of society rather than for their own good. So this would answer the question of why it was appealing, but my teachers firmly denied that there was anything that could be appealing to anybody about communism. (PS: I didn't walk around thinking this until high school, of course, but a fair number of my peers did (and still do(!))) 99.13.222.181 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC) PS I read your article lie to children and I found it interesting but (and no offense!) not really satisfying.

Not a question as much as a prompt for debate. Wrong forum.

I think it's like the bit in A Few Good Men: Col. Nathan R. Jessep: You want answers? Lt. Daniel Kaffee: I think I'm entitled. Col. Nathan R. Jessep: You want answers?! Lt. Daniel Kaffee: I want the truth! Col. Nathan R. Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC) I think it's like the bit in Scarface: Al Pacino: I'd kill a communist for fun, for a (reward) I will carve him up real nice ! Well, a very cynical view is to say that the role of public school in the United States, for example, is primarily to try and teach people to be "ideal Americans" in a very broad sense, and during the Cold War in particular this involved teaching things about the nastiness of Communists. One might, as well, question the quality of your teachers. Did they have a good reason for disliking it, or were they just going off of what they had been taught? One can't know about your particular situation, but if my American public school education was any indication, high quality teaching is not as common as we'd like it to be. (Though my teachers were not quite so blunt as what you are describing, in part because Communism was mostly a dead-letter question by that point.) If I were teaching elementary school, or high school, I would probably ideally want to show that the world is a pretty complicated place, full of grays rather than black-and-whites, but would that really work, would it resonate, would it get me in trouble? --Mr.98 (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The image about communism in your mind seems to be rather glorified. Where in the world has it created perfect society ? Saying what it "advocates" is rather gullible - this was the way they brought up Nazism, which advocated a perfect society (by killing all the Jews). The promoters of fundamentalism Islam also sell this kind of crap - they can give you a perfect society by putting a forced end to alcoholism, homosexuality, teenage pregnancy and adultery etc. Beware the people who promise you a perfect society. When they taught you that " its dogma advocates killing everyone who does not agree and forcing people to work on collectives and taking everyone's property so that the corrupt governers can be rich" they, I think, were telling you the truth, a bitter truth. Please look at history - the people Stalin has put to death for not agreeing with him ( any unbiased historian will agree he has broken the Hitler's record !) . The kind of industrial scale atrocities they did in China - Great Leap Forward and all that bullshit. Now there are most gruesome killings going on in India by China-supported communist militants.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Jon, you are soapboxing. Please stop it. Marnanel (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) He's right, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Whether he's right or wrong, he needs to stop. Marnanel (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Look carefully, the question itself is a cleverly disguised pro-Communism call ! The OP is not actually concerned with truths told at school or anything, all that is just an excuse so that he could come down to a chance to praise communism which is what his hidden agenda is (it would be soapboxing if done directly). But no one notices it, on the contrary my response (which exposed it) was "soapboxing". Good judgment !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC) How deliciously ironic. The OP asks: "So why do grownups think that little children need to have things simplified for them so they tell them that the world is black-and-white, and it's only later in life that these children find out that the world is really all sorts of shades of gray?" and you two go: "What? Gray? How can you say that, it's obviously black-and-white!" TomorrowTime (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Stalin killed around 6 million of his countrymen. The reality of communism was pretty much black-and-white to them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Oh Bugs, are you even trying? Come on, just try to be a critical thinker here. Stalinism is not the same thing as Communism, and people don't vote in Communism because they want Stalinism. And yes, they have, in the past, voted in or otherwise been very enthusiastic about Communism. The OP is really saying, "why don't teachers tell us a balanced account?", which doesn't mean "Hooray for Communism!" either. It means, "Well, here is what people wanted out of Communism, here are the wrongs they thought it would redress (Tsar Nicholas weren't no saint!), but here are what the outcomes have been." A perfectly mature discussion, more mature than the one we are having on here, because of you and Jon being so knee-jerk and ridiculously dogmatic. (I've no desire to live in a Communist society, and I think historically the real deficits to its theory and practice are pretty clear, but that doesn't mean I can't understand why people wanted it, or agree that the wrongs of capitalism can be pretty egregious as well.) Just because you can see there are two sides to something doesn't mean you have to agree with both sides equally, and that's what's really at issue here. I'm surprised that both of you could so perfectly repeat the same old dogmas without being critical about them in the slightest. You'd be the worse kind of teacher for someone on this subject, because you would, like the teachers of the OP, give a badly reasoned dogma that, once the student learned to think for themselves, would probably send them in the other direction. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) See Lies My Teacher Told Me Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC) The first thing to realize is that the teacher may not even realize what they are saying is wrong. When teaching others, people repeat what they themselves taught, not knowing it's incorrect. A bunch of it is that we (sensibly) don't require a Math Ph.D. to teach Math to elementary school students, and more of it is due to the state of knowledge changing since teachers started teaching. (This will rarely affect core curricula, as teachers take refresher courses, but you'll see it in ancillary information which a teacher recalls from their schooling.) Another part of it is the natural credulousness of children. The teacher may know that pi isn't exactly 3.14, and may even use careful wording when the value is first introduced, but "In this class, we use 3.14 for pi", while not incorrect, may be a subtle distinction which is lost on a 12 year-old. In addition, after answering the same question a dozen times, the phrase gets shortened for convenience to "pi is 3.14". So even if the abbreviation is simply a convenience specifically for the class, after a long time using it, it gets drilled into the child's head as the absolute truth. Regarding communism - that one's pure propaganda, but a widely held one. See Red Scare and McCarthyism. There was actually a period of time in the US where saying *anything* good about Communism could get someone (especially a teacher) fired. Demonizing and dehumanizing "the enemy" is an old practice in conflicts, but has the unfortunate side effect of lasting long after the conflict is over. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC) What a can of worms this could open. I wonder where the OP got the idea that Lenin had been elected. I'll just stick with the way Will Rogers described what Communist Russia was like compared with the USA: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax! But they ain't got no income!" And a corollary by Frank Zappa: "Communism doesn't work, because people like to own stuff." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Bugs, the OP never said that "Lenin had been elected". I know it's hard for you, but can you please stop lying to support your paranoid fantasies? DuncanHill (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC) What is need of useless things like income etc. when you are living in a heaven ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Communist Russia was heaven? Think again, comrade. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Bugs, stop trolling. If you don't have anything to add other than "NUH-UH!", don't bother. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 98, stop trolling. If you don't have anything to add other than sniping, don't bother. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC) No, this is not going to be a trolling event where we get to superficially argue back and forth about whether communism was great or awful or really awful. I don't see a lot of real non-opinion based question being asked here. The book link is excellent though (even though I know nothing about that book, I've only heard about it). Shadowjams (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Quite obviously wrong information is taught in schools, usually through outdated text books who's information has been proved wrong through science, or incompetent teachers. RECYCLED FIRE (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is J. E. Hoover?

The only information I have on him is that he served in the pacific front during WWII. J. E. Hoover --Arima (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that isn't the only information you have, is it? I googled for the set of names listed in that picture, and found them all at this list of 1940 Navy commanders, where his position is described as "Chief of Staff, Commander Aircraft, Battle Force", although his name is listed there as John H. Hoover. I'm pretty sure it's him because the other names in the picture are there up to and including the initials. This article says that he was a Rear Admiral and gives more information about what he did. Looie496 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• See also this query from User:Arima (talk) about six months ago: Category talk:United States Navy admirals#Looking for a J.E. Hoover —— Shakescene (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Help Required on Humanitarian Ground

I being a retired man, will be highly obliged if you could kindly arrange me to get some ONLINE DATA ENTRY or DATA EDITING or FORM FILLING JOBS etc. If yes pl. let me know, then I will come back with the details. V N Krishnaswamy, INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.77.212 (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

[Deleted extraneous opening space to reformat your text to fit the page.] 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia compiled by online volunteers. It doesn't offer any jobs of the type you describe, and it has no relationship with any employers seeking staff. Your best bet is to check employment agencies nearer home or Google for job vacancies. Good luck. Karenjc 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I could provide exactly the job you are looking for. Please contact me at: IF you really need it - check page history, actual email removed It is a honest job and you will be secured on payment part. But not many hours per week. 70.52.186.74 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Birthers Evidence

Birthers seem to focus on Barack Obama's birth certificate to prove he was born outside of the United States and thus ineligible to be President. Wouldn't his mother's passport be all that is needed to show he was born in Kenya? Ostensibly she was present at his birth. Are passports part of the public record? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many things that can affect eligibilty using birth location. John McCain, for example, was not born in the US, yet was qualified for the presidency. Even if Obama was not born on US soil, he still could have qualified, so the whole debate is silly. So even if her passport showed that they were in Kenya, that wouldn't necessarily mean he wasn't born a US citizen, as long as she herself was a US citizen under the appropriate condtions. [aaronite =]24.83.104.67 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, in the abstract, whether a person born outside the US to parents who are US citizens meet the "natural-born citizen" requirement. Of course it doesn't apply to Obama. But it's also never actually been tested. The McCain case was a bit different because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was US territory at the time (though there have been claims that he was actually born in an off-base hospital in Panamanian territory).

Even so, even the McCain case has never actually been tested. The Senate voted unanimously that he met the requirement, but it's not clear that they have the authority to make that finding. In fact it's not clear (at least to me) who does have the authority to make it, nor how you would even proceed to bring a challenge against a candidate on those grounds. Maybe you'd have to wait until he had been elected, and then challenge him in Congress, when the electoral ballots are being counted. --Trovatore (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's at least one similar case to McCain in modern history - Barry Goldwater, born in the Arizona Territory pre-statehood, ran for president in '64. I believe it passed entirely unremarked upon at the time; no-one seemed to think it might cause a problem. Shimgray | talk | 21:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The birthers are a bunch of reactionary conspiracy theorists who masquerade their racism as concern for the law. I doubt they would accept that Obama was born in Hawaii even if presented with a time machine and an opportunity to witness the event. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

gawd, please don't give them a time machine! --Ludwigs2 18:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Only if it's locked on "fast-forward". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Passports are relatively transient documents; once replaced, they're usually destroyed (or stuffed away in a drawer by the owner and forgotten about). It's relatively unlikely that someone's passport from the 1960s would still be in existence and available - and I am sure that even if it were to be found and produced, the people demanding evidence would come up with some explanation as to why it didn't mean anything. (fake passport stamps! or somesuch.) Shimgray | talk | 20:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I learned from dealing with the "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax" article, conspiracy theorists will never, ever, admit they've got it wrong, no matter what facts are put forward. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some birthers claim that even though Obama's mother was a US citizen, she had not been 18 years old for a full year, therefore, somehow, that meant that he wasn't by default a US citizen. Can't say I understand that logic myself, but there you go. So it doesn't matter where he was born, since she wasn't a legal citizen for a year as being a minor, he isn't either. Then there are those who claim that you can't be a US citizen if your father isn't, which is an odd argument that has never been upheld anywhere. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember when the republic and everything for which it stands totally collapsed because there was a Canadian-born president? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article claims that Arthur was born in Vermont. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article claims Obama was born in Hawaii!!! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, this latter case was actually quite common. I don't know if the United States ever used it, but many countries differentiated until quite recently between citizenship descending from the father and citizenship descending from the mother; likewise, there was in many cases a presumption that a wife would take her husband's citizenship but not vice versa. Shimgray | talk | 00:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is the age of his mother would potentially have an effect if he were born outside the US. E.g. see [1]. Note that this has nothing to do with it being his mother but a IMHO poorly worded law which is clearly seeking to prevent people gaining US citizenship due to the fact one of their parents was born and grew up in the US but then later moved overseas and never came back but because of the way it was worded does seem to potentially exclude people who are born overseas just because their American parent was too young at the time even if their American parent only spent a day overseas Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very long sentence, Nil. I've read it a few times but I keep on losing my way and not really getting what you're saying. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. My point is that the law was likely intended to prevent a parent who is a US citizen but if they did ever live in the US had emigrated when young, either with their parents or may be by themselves in their late teens, passing on their US citizenship by themselves (the law only applies if only one of the parents is a US citizen). This sort of thing isn't that uncommon and I can somewhat understand their desire to prevent it. However the law as worded seems to mean that any US citizen who had a child overseas (the other parent not being a US citizen) would not pass on their citizenship if they were too young at the time of the birth of the child. This would apply even if it was the mother who was only ever overseas on the day they gave birth. Or if it was the father and he had never, ever left the US. And ditto even though said parent had always intended to return (if necessary) to the US, bringing their child to live their lives together in the US. Of course they could still take their children back to the US with them as dependents I presume and their children would gain US citizenship after having lived in the US for long enough (I don't know the precise laws) but they wouldn't be a US citizen from birth. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never actually understood why a nation that has historically proclaimed so loudly its welcoming approach to the poor and oppressed from elsewhere has the "born in the USA" requirement for its President anyway. Can anyone explain? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be better scrapped. It's the one case where we say to citizens-by-choice, you're full citizens of this country, except in this one way.

To answer your question, though, I suppose the idea is to avoid some sort of Manchurian Candidate. Doesn't seem like a very serious concern, nor a very effective barrier, but I imagine that's the reason. --Trovatore (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Natural born citizen of the United States#Possible sources, the provision sort of crept in by accident; it was never explicitly debated or discussed until later. It makes a degree of sense in context; a lot of the constitution was aimed to prevent the problems that had characterised the colonies relationship with Britain. Less than a century earlier, a coup d'etat had toppled one British monarch and replaced him with a foreigner; the subsequent political manoeuvrings had basically involved importing a dynasty of foreign monarchs, who were not always entirely popular. If the problems of the crown were perceived by whoever wrote it as being linked to the "foreignness" of the king, this could be an explanation for the caveat. Shimgray | talk | 00:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right, that rings a little bell. I seem to recall there was a concern that some anti-republican faction would come to power and offer the presidency to some royal from Europe, who would then establish a royal line here. Maybe that was actually a genuinely reasonable concern at the time; I don't know. But it seems silly now. I'd love to remove that provision. But I doubt it'll happen anytime soon — three quarters of the states is a high barrier. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read speculation (somewhere) that it got stuck into the Constitution in order to make sure that Alexander Hamilton couldn't be President. He had made a few enemies in his day. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, at the time of writing there were no "natural-born citizens" by a strict reading - or, at least, none old enough to be running for office! There was an explicit grandfather clause granting citizenship to anyone already a citizen of one of the member states, to avoid this problem. Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. he colonies had been settled for 100+ years by the time of the revolution, so there were plenty of people born on this soil. Part of the issue, I think, is a question of loyalty. Someone born and raised in a foreign country may have mixed loyalties. e.g., a president who was born and raised in London might have an innate preference for British practices and ideals, or have other foreign attachments that cloud his judgement in potential conflicts. People often have a bias for their perceived home, and we want to make sure the nation's leader's bias is in our direction. I'm not sure that it really makes a difference in these days (most of our president are wealthy and cosmopolitan, and have nothing like the attachment to the land that a gentleman farmer in an agricultural economy would have. Heck, the Bush's have closer ties to Saudi royalty than to their own neighbors in Texas, so... --Ludwigs2 01:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there were plenty of people born in the colonies. There were none, old enough to be president, who were born in the states.

No doubt they could have found wording that would work around that, but instead they grandfathered in everyone who was a citizen at the time of adoption of the constitution, which does appear to refute the theory about Hamilton. --Trovatore (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There were Kings of England who were really Germans, and the founding fathers wanted to be sure our President didn't get "outsourced" that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is why (IMO) they put the emphasis on land. someone born in the colonies would still have loyalty to the land he was born on, even if that land belonged to a different nation at the time of his birth. This is land in the simple, physical sense of the word. --Ludwigs2 15:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, but that was assuming your own interpretation of the reason for the thing, rather than responding to what Shimgray had said. And it very specifically does not explain the grandfather clause. --Trovatore (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the best kings England had was a a frenchman. Richard Avery (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Best? He was a vile, murderous bastard who died the death he deserved, alone and unmourned. DuncanHill (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm — one of the best kings England had; vile, murderous bastard — someone tell me why you can't both be right? --Trovatore (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither is 'right', because they're both personal opinions, and we don't do opinions here ... except sometimes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, I hate explaining my jokes. The implication is that vile, murderous bastard is about the best you can expect from an English king. It's not totally a joke; whenever I read the history of the royals I come away with the sense that they were almost uniformly slime. They've been better behaved since they lost their effective power. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since he gave instructions about his legacy and pardoned some political rivals on his deathbed, then there must have been at least one person there to hear him. See for example the third paragraph of Odo_of_Bayeux#Trial.2C_imprisonment_and_rebellion 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And in a fitting bit of irony, Vile Bill's descendants continue to occupy the British throne. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but they're descended from a lot of other vile, murderous bastards as well - as are we all. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to do this, because I really think the birth issue keeps a lot of people occupied on useless trivia, people who otherwise might do something dangerous, like get involved in serious politics. Still, in the interest of accuracy. . . Our article about Neil Abercrombie says this former congressman and current gubernatorial candidate was a friend of the President’s parents while they lived in Hawai'i, and at the time Barack was born . . . in Hawai'i. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

password

How do you change your password? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annieslappy (talk • contribs) 19:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Click on My Preferences and then on Change Password. Rojomoke (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for future reference, questions about how to use Wikipedia are more appropriately asked at the Help Desk, But we'll also try our best to help you here. hydnjo (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's assuming OP was talking about Wikipedia passwords. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Purple gum at Albertsons

In the late 80s/early 90s I used to get this purple gum at Albertsons in Florida. It came in only one flavor — presumably grape, although I only remember it being the color purple. There were maybe six little tapered/rounded hexahedrons in the package… sort of like modern Bubblicious packages, only the pieces were slightly smaller, I think, and tapered/rounded at the edges, like they were cut apart with something slower or less sharp, etc.. It was different from gum in texture and flavor and shape, and that's probably why I haven't seen it in ages. Does anyone know what this product was called? :) TIA ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean Chewels gum. Here is an advertisement for it. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, I'm not sure if it's Chewels, Tidal Wave, or Freshen Up, but I do think it's probably one of those, or at the very least a competitor of that era — thanks, Battleaxe9872. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How does the "3rd cousin, twice removed" thing work?

I'm intrigued by English's system for naming relationships between distant family members, but I have a question about the whole "Xth cousin, Yth removed"-thing.

Let's say my name is Alice, and I have a cousin named Bob (that is, Bob is my aunt or uncle's son). We would be first cousins, right? Now lets say I have a child named Charlie, and Bob has a child named David. Charlie and David would be second cousins, right? But what is my relationship with David. Are we "first cousins, once removed", or are we "second cousins, once removed". Because I'm first cousin with his father, but my son is his second cousin, so you could make an argument for both.

In the same manner, what is the relationship between my son Charlie and my cousin Bob? Are they "first cousins, once removed" or "second cousins, once removed"?

Is there a general rule here, so you know what the deal is?

83.250.239.111 (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There are charts in the cousin article, do they help? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, didn't see that. Yes, that does answer my question, "first cousins, once removed" it is. Thanks! 83.250.239.111 (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And here's a short answer in words. If one of you is X+1 generations from your nearest common ancestor, and the other is X+Y+1 generations away, then you are Xth cousins Y times removed. In other words, the "Xth cousins" part is based on whichever of you is fewer generations from the common ancestor (if you're not of the same generation). --Anonymous, 00:40 UTC, September 5, 2010.

Actually, it works both ways. In the OP's example, David is Alice's first cousin once removed downwards, and Alice is David's first cousin once removed upwards. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. I hope "actually" doesn't mean you think I said something wrong, because I don't believe I did. --Anon, 20:44 UTC, September 5, 2010.

No, it was an infelicitous word choice on my part. But looking at this a little more closely, I think we need to place a condition on your formula: both X and Y need to be non-zero (you probably assumed that all along), because:

• if X=Y=0, you get siblings.
• if X=0 and Y=1, you get parent - child or uncle/aunt - nephew/niece
• if X=0 and Y=2, you get grandparent - grandchild or granduncle/grandaunt – grandnephew/grandniece
• if X=1 and Y=0, they‘re plain 1st cousins, or they could just be siblings
• if X=2 and Y=0, they’re plain 2nd cousins, or they could just be siblings. -- (Jack of Oz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. In my family we occasionally say "cousin-uncle" or "cousin-nephew". Don't know if those terms have any currency anywhere else. --Trovatore (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that that 'Bob was your uncle'.85.211.222.168 (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Bob's your uncle. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, is there a simple title for my nephew's wife, in the same style as sister-in-law? HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Niece-in-law sounds perfectly reasonable to me. ~ mazca ^talk 08:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it does, but it's a made up name so you won't find any lexicographic support for it. Also, it's ambiguous, since it could also refer to your spouse's niece (cf. father in law) or your child's niece (cf. son in law). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the meaning is pretty clear. You usually refer to your spouse's niece as simply your niece (at least in the States; not sure about elsewhere), so it's unlikely that meaning would be heard; your child's niece is your "great-niece" or "grand-niece". It seems sufficiently canonical that I'm sure lots of people have "made it up", all with the same meaning. Similarly for "cousin-in-law", which we use in my family. --Trovatore (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also not uncommon for two persons to be related in multiple ways, as when related persons get married. This is common in backwoods families with a limited breeding pool and in royal families. Edison (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 5

Best methods for maintaining health of feline teeth?

Considering the advance of technology, I'm wondering what the best home methods of maintaining the health of feline teeth might be at the present time. I know there is a finger brush, etc. Is it best to just let the vet deal with it? Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly easier. I think they sedate the cat while they're doing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

One can get (at least around here in Poland) specially-composed edible chew toys (in shapes of bones or such) the compounds in which help to cleen the feline teeth. Ask at your local pet store or ask your vet. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Asking your vet is the best advice provided so far. I would hope that you see a vet whose opinion you trust, so theirs would be the best for you. I recently asked my own vet a similar question. From what I understood, dry food was better since it kept the cats using their teeth by chewing their food. But he said that there was some research that suggested that dry food stuck to cats teeth more and therefore caused more problems due to bacteria being given a home. Dismas|^(talk) 07:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are proprietary products that claim to help with cats' dental hygiene. This, for example, is a product I have used with our cats; it claims to help keep cats' teeth clean as they eat it, through its texture and shape. NB: this is a link to the manufacturer's website; I can offer no opinion on the claims it makes, and there are probably other products out there that claim to do the same thing if you look. All I can say is that our cats eat them happily when they are offered, so they probably taste OK. Your vet will be able to advise you on what's best for your own cats' teeth, as others have said above. Karenjc 10:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A web search finds this online guide to cat teeth care. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are also varieties of dry cat food available commercially that purport to help clean feline teeth. Typically they are formed in largish kibbles and contain a higher than average proportion of vegetable fiber. Several brands are available. My cats like them, but I have not performed any controlled experiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Buttermilk vs yogurt

what is the difference between buttermilk & yogurt and their usage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.252 (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

See buttermilk and yogurt. They are quite different. Dismas|^(talk) 10:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

two-way radio

With two-way radios that are free and don't need a license, like Citizens Band, is there any limits on how long you can broadcast on a channel for, or could you clog up say channel 37 indefinitely? (obviously only in the area where you are using it, not global or whatever) 82.44.55.25 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about Citizens' band radio. Radio regulations vary from country to country so we cannot comment specifically without knowing your locality (the UK ?). All regulators may prosecute where excessive transmit power, off channel or interference with other services are reported. Excessive occupation of a frequency would sooner or later lead to complaints from other users. That would constitute interference which might lead to legal action. I don't know of any prescribed usage time limit, but continuous broadcasting is obviously not a permitted "two-way" use. (The article Citizens Band radio in India describes specific local frequency allocations.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tomato Ketchup

Does Heinz ever sell the other 57 varieties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoMinxy! (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's article on Heinz 57, the '57' was chosen for promotional reasons- Heinz was already selling more than 60 different products when they put the '57' on its labels, -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. See snopes.com. --ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Plus, they didn't mean 57 varieties of ketchup. It was more like 57 varieties of soup and other products. But as other have pointed out, there never was an explicit list of 57 varieties. SteveBaker (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it was 57 varieties of tomato that went into the ketchup... until I read snopes a few years ago. -- WORMMЯOW  10:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

September 6

Cake flour vs. self-rising

I got a recipe that calls for the use cake flour, and I honestly thought I had it on hand, but it turns out that I only have the self-rising variety. The store that is within reasonable walking distance from me is now closed, so I can't exactly go out and buy cake flour right now, and I don't want to postpone making the buckle until the next day. So if I decide to use self-rising flour as a substitute for cake flour, will the results be disastrous? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not when eaten hot. Perhaps you should not put in the baking powder,to compensate? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But when it cools down, will it turn into an inedible consistency, like a rock or something? Also, there's an inconsistency with the recipe, how do you add "approximately 3/4 cup" of "5 1/4 ounces sugar"? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be crumbly than like a rock. Really, you have to try it & report back. Looking at Cup (unit)#Using volume measures to estimate mass, 3/4 of a cup and 5.25 ounces are roughly the same (i.e. they're giving you two alternatives: weigh the sugar or measure it in a cup). --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading this, self-raising flour is (or can be) plain flour with 2% - 5% baking powder added. As I suggested above, just exclude the baking powder from the recipe and they'll probably be fine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Hopefully all will turn out well... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cake flour, traditionally, is rather finer than other types of flour, and the texture may differ slightly as a result, but I am not inclined to anticipate any catastrophy arising from this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The recipe panned out exactly as it should, so it turns out that self-rising flour is an acceptable substitute. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally, cake flour is only specified as not being bread flour. Bread flour is 'strong' flour, higher in gluten than cake flour. That can impact the texture, and high-gluten flour can also be less flavoursome than low-gluten flour (apparently). Self-raising flour is cake flour, with raising agent. Plain flour is also cake flour, but without raising agent. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never used anything other than self-raising flour in my cakes. I've always just followed my Be-ro cook book which states self-raising (http://www.be-ro.com/f_insp.htm) - the brand is something of a classic brand in the Uk. ny156uk (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

French commemorative medal.

I have come across a family owned medal with no knowledge of origin. Family has french heritage with service in 1914-18 war. Wording on medal as follows: Raised relief of Louis XV - "LUD.XV.REX.CHRISTIANISS" Reverse side - "ET HABET SUA CASTRA DIANA" with year "MDCCXXV". Considering its condition it would certainly have been struck during 20th century. Can anyone provide reason for medal and likely recipients114.78.95.127 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The obverse text could be taken from Ovid. Militat omnis amans, et habet sua castra Cupido "Every lover serves as a soldier, and Cupid has his own camp". (Amores 1.9[2]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The medal was created for Louis XV in 1725, because he liked to hunt as a youth (Diana was the Roman goddess of hunting). Assuming that you don't have the original, it must be a replica, not issued for anything in particular (except to make a bit of money off of people who like to buy historical replicas, presumably). There are other replicas for sale on Ebay and such. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

gasoline drill

How many holes can I do with a tanked up drill to knock in mountaineering spits?--217.194.34.103 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC) t.i.a.

I think that'll depend on the size of the drill you're using (petrol capacity, rate of fuel consumption), the hardness of the rock you're drilling, and the sharpness of the drill bit. So. anything from 0 to many. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you not just bring extra fuel in a Jerrycan ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If everyone lies...

...who is a liar?--Quest09 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For further information, see the Scott Adams book, The Way of the Weasel, in which he postulates that everyone lies to everyone, especially to themselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And lie detection gets even more difficult when that happens. Wikiscient (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: But, what is the purpose of having a word for something that everyone is? What does it mean then to say that "John is a liar"? And why woman say men are all liars, if they are liars too? And why is lying despicable, if everyone does it? --Quest09 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Everybody lies, but that doesn't mean that everyone lies for the same reasons or to the same extent. Similarly, (nearly) everybody uses drugs, writes, and runs, but not everyone gets labelled a "drug user" or "writer" or "runner" because using those labels means something different than the bare words. See connotation and denotation. Matt Deres (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Orientation of items in dishwashers

Until late last month, I'd never lived in a house with a dishwasher, so I'm rather unfamiliar with some aspects of using it. Why do we always place silverware handle-down, with the business end protruding upward? I do it because I've seen others do it, but I can't see how its orientation makes a difference to the silverware. Note that our dishwasher article says nothing on the subject. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You get more cutlery in that way. And the business ends are up and out of the basket so that they are thoroughly washed. By the way, it is a good idea to rinse plates, etc.. Helps to prevent rubbish build-up within the machine.95.176.67.194 (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It also means that any liquid residue left on the silverware after the rinse cycle will tend to flow down onto the handle, away from the business end of the cutlery. In a poorly-designed silverware basket, the cutlery may also be left in contact with a small amount of standing liquid at the bottom of the basket, and leaving the pointy end of forks down may cause them to become wedged or jammed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

However, there are also arguments against leaving the pointy end uppermost. [3], [4], [5]. Karenjc 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For larger knives, especially in a dishwasher which isn't completely full, you can compromise by resting them horizontally on a different part of the rack rather than in the little basket. They'll clean as well, but there's much less danger of this sort of accident. Shimgray | talk | 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Safety issues aside, I would recommend strongly against using the dishwasher for kitchen knives in any case. Pointy end up or down, one risks the blade striking other items (cutlery or dishes) nicking and dulling the blade. Many types of knife handle don't tolerate long water exposure/immersion and high temperatures well, and repeated trips through the dishwasher may loosen the handle, or open cracks in which microbes can become trapped. As well, a sharp blade may damage protective plastic coatings on the dishwasher's internal metal fittings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It does depend somewhat on the dishwasher and the nature of the cutlery basket, too. My old dishwasher had a basket with particularly sparse edges, and actually recommended that cutlery should be put in point-up and point-down in roughly equal proportions for the best washing performance. My current dishwasher, conversely, has inbuilt handle-sized holes in the lid of the basket, leaving you no option but to put everything in handle first as it won't fit the other way. ~ mazca ^talk 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The benefit to the holes is that they enforce spacing between items, which can be a problem with a normal basket - if you put a handful of spoons or forks of the same pattern in, they're liable to clump together, meaning that the inside "layers" don't wash well. (Handle-down also helps here, in that it's easier to check they're distributed.) Shimgray | talk | 17:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't own a dishwasher, but when I place cutlery on a drying rack I always put it pointy side down. Partially because that's the way my mother taught me and partly out of an ingrained learned instinct not to have a blade pointing outwards, or even visible, when not in use. APL (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course, snopes has this covered. APL (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually read the instruction manual of the new dishwasher we recently acquired, and it said business end down, and don't rinse plates. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of our smaller knives will fit through the holes in the cutlery basket of our current dishwasher, so they have to go in sharp end up, even though it's a bit dangerous. What's best really depends on your particular dishwasher and your particular cutlery. --Anonymous, 05:35 UTC, September 7, 2010.

My mother's dishwasher has a basket for utensils which makes them lie horizontally instead of vertically. I am thinking now, maybe this might be dangerous and could cause them to dislocate during washing, I had never thought about this before. For normal washing (as I do not own a dishwasher myself either) I place the utensils pointy/spoony end up to dry, because the bottom of my dryer unit tends to gather grime sometimes. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretentious

What is considered the most pretentious film ever? With this logic (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that AFI has done a list of 'most pretentious films,' and I searched for "Most pretentious film" and found lots of message boards discussing the subject, but didn't find any film authorities weighing in. There is some general consensus on the best film (Citizen Kane), and the worst film (Plan Nine from Outer Space), but I can't find any good source for a consensus on this question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Green Berets (film). Vets walk out of showings and demanded their money back.--Aspro (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Citizen Kane over Casablanca and Vertigo? That's pretty silly. Citizen Kane is one of the best substitutes for a sleeping pill you're likely to find on the big screen. --Trovatore (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Thinks.... confused pretentious with the pretentious of subject matter dealt with by some films ....William Randolph Hearst for example. The film itself was not protentious. --Aspro (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Trovatore, the fact is that Citizen Kane has been showing up in "Best Films of All Time"-type lists forever. You may not agree that it's all that great. But here is not the place to have a discussion about it. Firstly, nothing would change. But more importantly, it's completely irrelevant to the OP's question. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And neither is your comment because the OP Q is not about greatness but pretentiousness. Born on the Fourth of July (film) was a good antithises --Aspro (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My vote is for Woody Allen's Interiors. Looie496 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

People stopped going to the movies in the 70s when a lot of films were like that. 92.28.248.94 (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you guys haven't even touched the surface of pretentiousness. How about My Dinner With Andre, which makes any Woody Allen film look like the Three Stooges? Nothing gets worse than two guys with unlistenable accents chatting over dinner for 2 hours. Andre Gregory: "That reminds me of the time we all decided to perform Hamlet with our bodies smeared with butter". Wallace Shawn: "Oh, that sounds interesting, tell me more." Imagine that for 2 hourse. Unwatchable.--Jayron32 04:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Siskel & Ebert liked it. In fact, if not for them, probably nobody would ever have heard of it. Although it also fit Hitchcock's axiom: "Two people sitting around a table talking is not a movie. Now, if there's a bomb under the table, that's a movie." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course in the Hitchcock version you'd first learn some hint about the bomb about half an hour into the movie, and it'd be another half hour before that hint crystallized into an actual bomb. Hitchcock movies moved like cold molasses. In a few cases, like Vertigo, the payoff was spectacular. But for lots of others — like, say, The Wrong Man, there was really never any payoff to speak of. (Admittedly it's a little unfair to pick on The Wrong Man because it had the almost insuperable handicap of being true, but it's not the only one in the never-pays-off category, just the one I've seen most recently.) --Trovatore (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because Hitchcock movies spent time on such worthless endeavours as character development and plot. Now that our brains have been poisoned by the likes of Michael Bay and Joel Schumacher to believe that any film that doesn't have shit blowing up in slow motion around Nicholas Cage and Bruce Willis to be unwatchable; but there was once a time when people actually watched movies because they cared about the characters in them. --Jayron32 06:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying, sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. A lot of the really great movies do start a little slow. But so do some really dull ones.

I was appalled, not that long ago, to find that the critics' response to one of my all-time greats, Blade Runner, was that it was too slow. That was ludicrous; it wasn't slow, it was stately.

On the other hand, 2001: A Space Odyssey was just slow. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least one notorious film authority called that one pretentious. John Simon in The New Leader, 1968: "... a kind of space-Spartacus and, more pretentious still, a shaggy God story."(rogerebert.com) ---Sluzzelin talk 06:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No opinion; I haven't seen it in too long. I don't usually re-watch films that I think are boring. Maybe it would be worth running the experiment — I didn't like Brazil the first time, and now it's one of my favorites. But the reason that I didn't like it the first time was that I thought it was disturbing; I think disturbing changes to interesting more readily than boring does. --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh hey, how about The Breakfast Club as most pretentious? Don't know if the critics have said that, but it works for me. --Trovatore (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the subjectivity of this question, the ambiguity of the term pretentious makes it a very difficult question to even discuss among ourselves (which we shouldn't be doing anyway). Naming My Dinner with André, is an example of directing the word "pretentious" against a certain stereotype of navel-gazing intellectualism. With Interiors, it is also the pretentiousness of trying to be like Ingmar Bergman. While searching a bit, I saw The Passion of the Christ being labeled as pretentious. A completely different type of pompous puffery. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and The Breakfast Club is still another sort. Its populism is its affectation. --Trovatore (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Actually, now that I look at it again, I shouldn't have started the sentence with "Yes" — I don't really think that about The Passion of the Christ. I don't know that I'll ever see it again, but I think it was sincere.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha! There you go! My personal usage of pretentious needn't imply insincerity. Making a sincerely felt claim to undeserved importance can come across as pretentious (and so can having the dialogue spoken in Aramaic). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Aramaic was one of the main reasons I went to see the film. I thought it was an audacious choice and wanted to see it done. Unfortunately I didn't think the actors came across natural when speaking it. On the other hand the Italians that he got to play Romans sounded totally natural, at the expense of anachronistically speaking Church Latin. --Trovatore (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ed Wood's efforts were totally sincere, yet also pretentious, in that he thought they were much better than they were at conveying some kind of social message. You don't have to be on a mega-budget to be pretentious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I disagree that you can be sincere but pretentious. I certainly do agree you don't need huge production values. (By the way, on the subject of Wood, Plan 9 gets a worse rap than it deserves; it actually does have a couple of interesting things to say, despite the amateurish execution.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen worse movies than Plan 9. Wood himself made one or two of them. In fact, the colorized version of Plan 9 is an improvement. You can actually compare the extremely bare bones of his stories with the extremely bare bones of classics like The Day the Earth Stood Still and realize that the difference is in little details like script, acting, direction, and budget. Defining what "pretentious" really means is where this gets slippery. You can go down a checklist of production values as to why a movie is inferior (and Plan 9 has a very long list), but it's harder to do that with "pretentiousness", because there's so much opinion and personal preference involved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This subject could perhaps be a section within List of films considered the worst, or perhaps there's enough material for a companion article, List of films considered the most pretentious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Intolerance (film) was widely considered the most ambitious, and possibly pretentious film of its era. Acroterion _(talk) 14:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sluzzelin's got it right. OP needs to define pretentious or else this is just yet another request for opinions, something that we (used to) not do here on the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does OP need to define it? Go look at a dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretentious 124.37.178.244 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

We've never not done it. It's a pious commonplace, never actually observed. --Trovatore (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, and I haven't done it. But it seems recently that the disclaimer is being blatantly ignored by more and more editors. For those that perhaps haven't noticed it, I will repeat it here: "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

People are eager to answer questions that are really unanswerable. My guess is that The Green Berets might well be the answer. But as I noted earlier, you can call a movie "worst" based on a checklist of production values; but to call a movie "pretentious" is largely a matter of opinion. I doubt that an internet forum will do anything but provide more opinions. To create an article List of most pretentious films would be difficult to source. You'd have to use a lot of OR just to figure "whose opinion matters". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I may have one correct answer to the OP's question. Mindwalk (1990), is generally criticized as pretentious, even though I don't think it is. However, it appears many disagree, as it has never been released on DVD. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The films of Joan Collins would be the place to look. 92.15.20.52 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

astronauts

what have they not sent anyone to the moon for so long? would it be right to call a shuttle astronaut names for not having been to the moon? Isn't the moon more dangerous? Would they ever put soemone on mars? Is it that the shuttle isnt as good as the saturn five or are they just not able to go to the moon any more? Mocteau (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Apollo program article presumably would get into more detail, but the bottom line was "the bottom line" - namely, that there was no further interest in public funding of manned missions to the moon. The final three Apollo launches were cancelled, and the government space agencies used the information it had gained from the moon programs to go forward with the earth-centric shuttles and space stations, and robotic explorers to other planets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

{ec}I think the view being taken is, "been there, done that, got the t-shirt". It costs less to travel to & hang out in the space station than on the lunar surface, and NASA does not have limitless resources. Comparing just these two things, it is far far far far far more sensible to play space station games than lunar landing games. In other news, you should not call anyone names; not big, not clever. Shuttle versus Saturn V is an apples & pears comparison; mostly unhelpful. "They" could go the the moon if they wanted. It's just that they mostly (and with one eye on the budget) don't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. If you're old enough to recall the space program, once we actually accomplished a few moon landings, it started to become old news and public support plummetted. "We beat the Rooskies", that was the main thing, and then the public said, "Now let's spend our money on useful stuff." Like the Vietnam War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that last part about the Vietnam War being "useful" was trolling. 95.93.28.118 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It was irony, and the moon landings were one of the Vietnam War casualties, although there was really a sense that there was nothing else to do on the moon at that time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Moon landings are expensive and logistically demanding and space travel is inherently dangerous. If we discover valuable resources on the moon that are rare on earth we may be able to justify the cost, expense and danger. Exxolon (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The danger is not a good argument at all. Is there anyone here who wouldn't go to the Moon given a 90% chance of coming back safe? --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The real issue is that you are now confusing Space tourism with actual space-based scientific and commercial activities. It turns out that almost anything we could do in space is cheaper, easier, and less dangerous when done by unmanned probes. As technology has progressed, we no longer need to send someone to, say, Mars or the Moon to bring back a chunk of rock to study on earth. We don't even need to bring the chunk back to earth, modern probes are equipped with rather sophisticated equipment which can do all of the necessary analyses on site. What activity beyond "just going for the sake of going" could a human do, at this point, which cannot already be done by unmanned probes (which don't need food, water, entertainment, etc.)? Some of the research going on at the ISS, in terms of long-term survivability of people in space, growing food at zero G, etc. may be useful for future colonization, but as of right now, at the current state of the space program, there's just not a need to put a person on the moon. What would they do when they got there that would make it worth the trip? --Jayron32 05:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm just saying we don't have to think of the risk to astronauts as some sort of deep sacrifice that we should avoid asking of them if we have a way around it. There are plenty of volunteers who would take the risk gladly and thank us for the chance. I'd be one of them if I had anything to contribute up there and could meet the standards. --Trovatore (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"would it be right to call a shuttle astronaut names for not having been to the moon?"

In case you haven't already realised this from the replies above, Mocteau, once the Saturn V rocket was retired, the USA (and everyone else) no longer had any rocket capable of getting astronauts the 240,000 miles to the Moon. In fact, we (humanity) have not since then even been able to get astronauts (whose life support capsules and systems weigh a lot) as far as the 22,000-mile-high Geosynchronous Orbit of most communications satellites. The Shuttle can only get to Low Earth Orbit, no more than about 600 miles up. If the USA (say) decided today to go to the expense of designing and building another Moon-capable rocket system, it would take (I believe it has been estimated) at least 10 years to complete it. So no, it would be quite wrong to insult Shuttle astronauts for not having gone to the Moon - I'm sure they would all love to if they could, but it hasn't been possible for them or anyone else since 1973. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would it take us 10 years to build such a rocket? It only took 9 years from blueprints to the moon the first time they did it. Googlemeister (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a national urgency about it that pushed the schedule, sometimes with disastrous results. There would be no such national urgency now, and it would be a project that everyone would want a slice of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the inherent dangers just in the shuttle program and other space programs, the best "name" I can think of to call astronauts and cosmonauts is "heroes". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Why? Is everyone who does something dangerous a hero? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In what may be one of the last remaining personal freedoms, individual people still get to choose their own heroes. I refuse to have heroes imposed on me by others. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The OP's question was "would it be right to call a shuttle astronaut names for not having been to the moon?" As if they had a choice in the matter. I call them heroes. You can call them by whatever names you want. But not "for not having been to the moon", since they have no control over that option. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Death rates for space flights and astronauts are not trivial. On any one space flight you have a 1 in 50 chance of dying. Over your astronaut career that jumps to 1 in 20. Ergo you don't send people into space unless there's a damn good reason to do so - going to the moon for shits and giggles would be a ludicrous idea. Exxolon (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's total nonsense. As I said above, there's no lack of volunteers (I'd love to be one myself but I'd never make the cut), and they're entitled to make that choice.

Oh, it would be different if it were the sort of "volunteer" that you get in wartime, where someone has to charge the machine gun nest, and you do it so your buddy doesn't have to. But I don't think it's that at all. I'd gladly do it at a 2% risk of my life, and not out of any sense of duty, but because I genuinely wanted to.

So if you think it's not worth the tax dollars to send people up there, fine, I'll listen to that argument. But don't give me any nonsense about the risk. --Trovatore (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that on average, a career astronaut only goes into space 2.5 times total? Googlemeister (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Info is from Space accidents and incidents. Obviously the statistical sample is rather small, but that is the current rate based on accidents so far. Exxolon (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray Mears

I have been watching a collection of the television shows that Mr Mears has made, and I have two questions that seem to have not been answered in the shows, firstly and most importantly; RM cooks alot of food in a traditional method by digging a hold underneath his camp fire, placing food in the hole, often wrapped in leaves then covered with either coals and soil or soil and coals, this then cooks the food. One can come back later, dig up the food and it is beautifully cooked. I agreed with him that this may be a very tasty way of cooking with natural flavours, but, I am sure any one who has watched his shows or tried this themselves will agree, and want this answered too. How do you stop from getting sand in your food? This can be very unpleasant as I am sure alot of people have experienced this at some stage, sand on food, even just a grain or two can be very unpleasant. How does he evade this when cooking directly on the flames, or when buried beneath the fire? secondly, and very much as an aside, how does one go about nominating some one for a knighthood? RM surely is in need of this, he has done wonders for preserving ancient methods of cooking food, ancient foods themselves, and methods of using natural materials for survival. Alot can be learned from him in the modern age especially now days when we are trying to be quote unquote green. We all need to start making better use of our natural resources, apparently, and I feel he is a forrunner in this field and deserves some sort of recognition for this. So to summerize, how do you stop from getting sand in your food when doing traditional cooking, and how would one go about nominating some one for a knight hood? Sir Ray Mears, nice ring to it huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

To nominate someone for a knighthood, you simply write to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street (some awards, such as those to military and diplomatic services are handled instead by the relevant secretary of state). It looks like Ray Mears hasn't been awarded a lower class of honour (e.g. OBE, CBE), which you'd generally expect to be awarded before a knighthood. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrap the food in big leaves, or perhaps paper or cloth. If someone is worthy of a knighthood for being paid to read out someone else's script about "done wonders for preserving ancient methods of cooking food" then about half the population of Britain have done things of equal merit and deserve a knighthood too. 92.28.248.94 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of an Earth oven? This is still used in some cultures on special occasions, I don't think RM had anything to do with that. Guides to setting one up, like a hāngi should help with any problems you have. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One cannot avoid the grit. Look at skeletal remains of those that ate such a diet and they have heavily worn teeth.Some people even make a study of the wear. [6]Here are some images (not all at once now, or you might crash the site) [7] --Aspro (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ray Mears isn't that great. I used to like his shows, but after they killed and deer and skinned it for no purpose other than killing a deer and skinning it I hated the man. I mean sure killing to eat is one thing, but killing a poor innocent creature just to say "hi folks at home here's what a dead deer looks like" it's disgusting and no respect for nature. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Knowing how to skin a deer is pretty important if you're going to eat it, use the skin for clothing, etc, and Ray Mears teaches how to cook a variety of game, as well as how to make useful things from bits and pieces of them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Of the people who watch it, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be in a situation where they need or find a use for such information. Unless they are by choice into guns and blood sports. 92.28.242.240 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of us are interested in how our ancestors lived, and how indigenous people around the world live. Knowledge does not need to have an immediate utilitarian value to be of importance. Almost nobody will ever need to know where Washington was born, or the different flavours of quarks, but that is no argument against educating people about them. I have to say the post abut the deer was somewhat disingenuous, as Mears doesn't kill animals to say "this is what a dead deer looks like" - he'll demonstrate ancient hunting techniques, preparation, cooking, etc, and talk about the importance of the animal to the societies which depend upon it. DuncanHill (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 7

fatal auto accidents

I am trying to find a comparison of the percentage of national motor cycle fatal accidents compared to the total number of motor cycle accidents and the percentage of national auto fatal accidents compared to the total number of auto accidents. can you help? thank you for your time and consideration. (e-mail address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.66.240 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - from Motorcycle_safety#Accident_rates - "Motorcycles have a higher fatality rate per unit of distance travelled when compared with automobiles. According to the NHTSA, in 2006 18.06 cars out of 100,000 ended up in fatal crashes. The rate for motorcycles is 55.82 per 100,000.[1] In 2004, figures from the UK Department for Transport indicated that motorcycles have 16 times the rate of serious injuries per 100 million vehicle kilometers compared to cars, and double the rate of bicycles.[2]" Exxolon (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Check that link - Motorcycle_safety#Accident_rates - more useful info there. Exxolon (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A recent edition of this http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd/episodes/player radio programme - the 03/09/10 one - includes discussion of some pitfalls about interpreting transport accident statistics and would be worth listening to. 92.15.12.116 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to identify a documentary I once saw as a child

I am looking for help identifying a nature documentary I saw when I was a child (mid-'90s). It follows the communal life of a particular group of orangutans in the wild (but maybe gorillas or chimps??).

Unfortunately, I can only remember one scene -- but if you saw it, you too would never forget it:

One of the orangutans is an infant, and he is being raised by his mother or perhaps his aunt. She carries him around piggy-back style, like most orangutans do. But the weird thing is, he never outgrows this, even as he grows into a large adolescent. He never permits her to put him down -- in fact, now he can force her to carry him. Then she gets polio. Carrying him saps her of her strength, and she dies. Without her, he too dies.

Thank you for your help. I've also asked this question on www.vark.com, and also at National Geographic and orangutan and nature documentary (I know that the reference desk frowns on re-posting, but I figure this is different since it's multiple article talk pages rather than multiple reference desks). Thanks. 160.39.220.66 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jane Goodall was filming chimps with her husband in Gombe around 1966 when polio struck. She kept her own child in a cage so that the chimps would not eat him. Maybe its on youtube.--Aspro (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like Flint, maybe? Wikiscient (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help with your question, but for future reference, you should note that individual talk pages are intended solely for discussing their articles, not for discussion or questions about the topic. Good luck with finding your answer. Rojomoke (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Try searching on youtube for keywords, its likely someone has uploaded it Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you remember anything more to narrow it down? Was there a presenter on-screen? Was the presenter or voice-over male or female? Did they have a British accent? Was it David Attenborough? I'm not sure if British nature documentaries are re-dubbed in American accents for that audience. 92.15.12.116 (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In general, they aren't- we Americans associate British accents with high intelligence, so we like them in our documentaries. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help. It was so long ago. I can only remember that the presenter was not on-screen. Nothing else! 160.39.220.66 (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It couldn't have been orangs because they don't live communally. Other than that I don't know. The idea of a mother gorilla carrying around a full-grown adult male creates a pretty ridiculous image in my mind, though. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Where do you live? In most of the world humans do live communally Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Oh, I get it. Orang = man in Malay. 81.131.42.80 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I see in Orangutan Island they "are raised to go against their normal nature to form a society and live together in a cooperative society". There are three other orangutan documentaries or TV shows listed in the "see also" section. The Disenchanted Forest claims that they have culture, and "a rich and complex society of elders and peers provides the young with critical knowledge that is necessary for their survival". This would seem to contradict Orangutan Island's claim that they don't naturally cooperate. I'm not sure which bunch of nature-fetishists is lying, quite possibly both. 81.131.42.80 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

maritime flags

The Scottish Red Ensign

can you tell me if a Scotish ensign flag is legal witch has a St Andrews flag in the corner of a red background as apost to the Red Ensign witch has a Union Jack in the corner with a red background —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lornforth (talk • contribs) 09:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

According to our article the flag shown here - which I assume is what you mean - was used by the Royal Scots Navy prior to the Acts of Union 1707. According to this site, which sells them, "it is still used unofficially by private citizens for use on water". So, its use is presumably not illegal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I gather that one of the major reasons why the Scottish Red Ensign has been (recently) adopted is that the Scottish flag (just the white diagonal cross/saltire on a blue field) is virtually identical to the letter 'M' flag in the International maritime signal flags. The alternate meaning of the flag is "My vessel is stopped and making no way through the water", which is very confusing (and illegal in many waters) when flown from a vessel underway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Striking up a conversation sitting / standing up

The probability that a complete stranger strikes a conversation with you in a café or pub is much higher if you are standing that if you are seating, Why? Is it everywhere like that?--Quest09 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, and yes. In Australian pubs, you'll certainly have strangers talk to you if you're alone (unless you're putting out "fuck off" vibes, which people often do without being aware of it). I agree that it's more likely to happen to standing people than to sitting people - although that depends on whether you're sitting at the bar or at a table. A person sitting at a bar is more likely to attract another single person for interlocutory purposes (and, who knows, if the conditions are right, maybe other purposes), than a person sitting at a table away from the bar. A standing person looking like they need to be taken home and looked after will probably be offered exactly that sooner or later (we are a very hospitable people). It also depends to a degree on what type of pub it is.

But I can't recall such conversations happening in cafes at all, no matter whether you're standing waiting to be served, or sitting waiting to be served, or sitting eating. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably a personal space issue. Conversations between standing and sitting people can be awkward and it's considered rude to sit down with someone without an invite. If you are standing, people will move past and around you and this gives more opportunities for casual conversation. Exxolon (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

During my travels, some of my best and most memorable encounters have come from sitting/standing at the bar (or the counter of a diner). It is a great way to meet people whether locals or fellow travellers. Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If your sitting your likely eating or reading or doing something and don't want to be disturbed. If your standing your just loitering and doing nothing, so people feel better for disturbing you. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The British Social Anthropologist Kate Fox has studied such behavioural phenomena extensively, particularly in the context of British pubs, and mentions this particular one in (at least) two of her works; Watching the English and the more concise and directly relevant (to this topic) Passport to the Pub. There is (she has observed) an extensive unwritten etiquette to behaviour in pubs, which most regular pub-goers unconsciously follow without being consciously aware of most of it most of the time. One element is that a person standing at or near the bar is signalling openness to uninvited conversational approaches, particularly if alone, and standing couples (in the relationship sense) or larger groupings are approachable if not obviously engaged in close personal conversation; however, sitting at a table, particularly as a couple, indicates a desire not to be so approached unless a clear signal (such as themselves addressing someone else) is made. Obviously there is a good deal more to this and many other similar matters in the books. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can highly reccommend Watching the English. A great read and not the dry academic text you might expect from an anthropologist. Astronaut (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Staragte

When is Stargate Universe comming back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Half charged (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Universe says September 28, 2010 for America. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Muslim prayer room in World Trade Center

Was there a Muslim Prayer room in the destroyed WTC tower 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.194.169 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be common knowledge that there were something like a half dozen chapels and prayer rooms in WTC, one of which was a Muslim prayer room, but I've not been able to find any definitive evidence or good sources about it. I'd think it quite likely, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So, they possibly also destroyed some Coran left in the Muslim prayer room? --Quest09 (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they would have no problem justifying having caused that "collateral damage". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's that seemingly non-human "they" being associated with mainstream Islam again. Before Hitler, most of Europe's wars (and there were lots of them) involved almost everybody on both sides praying for and doing things in the name of the Christian God while fighting and killing one another and destroying each others' property. I can guarantee that millions of Bibles would have been destroyed in the process. Those who overtly choose the path of killing others in war are usually quite irrational, and don't really care whose religious icons become collateral damage. The other side, "they", are sub-human, so it doesn't matter. HiLo48 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think "they" in the above referred to the perpetrators of 9/11, whom I for one do not associate with "mainstream Islam". Rojomoke (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "they" means the perpetrators. I have known a number of Muslims, and in general I find them to be kind and gentle. The 9/11 guys did nothing but give Islam a bad name, or a big black eye, to put it mildly. Every religion gets embraced by evil people from time to time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that was hyperbole, but really? Millions of Bibles? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How many do you think were destroyed in the Bombing of Hamburg in World War II? It looks like about a quarter million houses were destroyed, plus who knows how many apartments. Add a few bookstores, libraries, churches, and maybe the odd Bible storage warehouse, and you can probably get up to a million pretty easily, just from the firebombing of a few major metropolitan areas. It's a pretty common book in Europe, after all. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, but Hilo did specify "before Hitler". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, I was also wondering about the mechanism through which war destroyed so many bibles. There would really only be a 300-400 year window where there were enough bibles to destroy without destroying all of them. That's about 5,000 war-destroyed bibles per year for four hundred years.

But I assumed it was hyperbole and resisted the urge to be the first person to bring it up. APL (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it quite likely that the 9/11 terrorists destroyed at least one Koran, but they also killed quite a few Muslim Americans. You see, they were bad people. By the way- as a bonus answer to the question you didn't ask- this year, a major Muslim holiday happens to fall on September 11. When you see your Muslim neighbors gathering with their families and friends for a big celebration, they actually aren't celebrating the fact that 9 bad people murdered their co-religionists and their countrymen. But I'll bet someone will claim that they are. Watch your favorite politician, and see if he or she tries to misrepresent these celebrations, and then ask yourself whether you're buying into an anti-Muslim hysteria that's just some cynical politician's vote grab. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The best solution to counter that kind of hysteria is to educate oneself; for example, to ask a Muslim to talk about his/her religion, about what Ramadan is about, etc. Not to argue back about things, but just to listen and try to understand where they're coming from. Muslims believe just as strongly in their faith as Christians and Jews and so forth do in theirs, and no religion has a monopoly on the truth. Good relations involve considering the possibility that others might be onto something that you've overlooked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Ramadan end on the 10th? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe for those who rely on calculated moon phases generally Ramadan will end at sunset of September 8 or September 9 depending on location (or if they use Mecca or their home country as their reference). Muslims will therefore celebrate on the night of September 8/9 and the day of September 9/10. However Eid ul-Fitr celebrations may last more then a day although some may scale back their celebrations this year in the US [8]. For those who rely on sighting of the moon I think it's possible Ramadan may end at sunset of September 10 and therefore the first full day of celebrations will be September 11 but I suspect it's not particularly likely in the US given it's geographical location Nil Einne (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI the moon is over 31 hours old by now. It was sighted in South Africa this evening so we are celebrating Eid tomorrow 10 September as is most of the world. I don't think anyone is having it on the 11th; the moon phase is such that Eid would either be today or tomorrow in any part of the world. But this is getting seriously off-topic. Eid Mubarak to all, I'll catch up with all things WP on Saturday. Zunaid 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

on my screen sometimes it says radio is logged in /available.

Does that mean that anyone can log in on my emails or use my laptop . As you may gather I know very little about IT but this is a niggle in the back of my mind @btinternet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.139.101 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC) email address removed to prevent possible spamming - responses will appear on this page. Richard Avery (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly not (though it's hard to be sure with so little information about what the message is and what is producing it). You can think of logging into a system like unlocking a door: if your car is unlocked that doesn't mean that people can get into your house. But I have no idea what it would mean to say "radio is logged in". --ColinFine (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That message is probably referring to a wireless Internet card in your computer. HP computers often display little popups with similar messages when they start up. If the message bothers you and you want to be sure you are immune from intrusion, turn on Windows Firewall, or disable your network wireless card in the Windows Device Manager. If you need followup information, please tell us what version of Windows you are running, and the manufacturer and model number of the computer you have. Also, for future computer questions you should probably utilize the Computing Reference Desk — this is the Miscellaneous desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Heat

I want to make a small heating element. Would a 9v battery and flat piece of metal be good enough? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are aiming at a high operating temperature you need something like Nichrome. Using a resistor of the value that will give you the Watt per second that you need, is probably easier for low temperature -see section "wire wound". If the 9 v you're thinking of is a PP3 it wont have much puff. Try a high drain alkalines like these.[9]. What are you trying to do?--Aspro (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A "flat piece of metal" would indeed create heat, but all at once when it short-circuits the battery. As Aspro points out, you need a material of sufficiently high resistance that the energy is not all dissipated at once (which might have an unfortunate effect on the battery and those in the immediate neighborhood). Acroterion _(talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"style"

(Moved here from the Science desk)

what is the "style" of the chair found here

http://www.amazon.com/Rio-Brands-BRN-Promo-Chair/dp/B000VQHR7W/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=garden&qid=1283888946&sr=1-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A Folding chair. ny156uk (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a Folding Lawn Chair. Buddy431 (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a folding lawn chair. I've had these from time to time. They're pretty flimsy, but their light weight allows for easy transport to ball games and such. If the OP is looking for something more specific info, that might be a challenge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As the title of the referenced page suggests, furniture like that is often called "web furniture" (in this case, a "web chair") because of the webbing used. Also "patio furniture". Which I can't say without thinking of an old joke: "What's Irish and stands around in your back yard?" "Paddy O'Furniture!" —Steve Summit (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oy! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

3

Whats the deal with 3s? Like, people like things in 3s. And say "things come in 3s". Do they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evlwty (talk • contribs) 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article 3 (number) might provide some insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do. Two can be as bad as one; it's the loneliest number since the number one. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Women, I hear, can come in threes, but men generally are only good for one at a time. --Jayron32 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing that does come in threes a lot is boss fights in video games. Specifically, you'll have to destroy three vital parts, or hit the difficult-to-reach weak point three times, or...anyway, I'm sure this was commented on in an article somewhere on the Internet. I was going to link to it, but Googling just turns up a lot of video games with "3" in the title... Vimescarrot (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See Rule of three (writing). It suggests to me that things coming in threes in real life are just more memorable than things coming in, say, ones (because everything comes in ones, how boring). Paul (Stansifer) 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Three Is a Magic Number: "Somewhere in the ancient, mystic trinity. You get three as a magic number. The past and the present and the future. Faith and Hope and Charity, The heart and the brain and the body Give you three as a magic number...A man and a woman had a little baby. Yes, they did. They had three in the family. That's a magic number." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Just Molly and me / And baby makes three / We're happy in My Blue Heaven." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there's Trinity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The threes cluttered up our nursery rhymes and kids stories - blind mice, bears, little pigs, musketeers, stooges. And wise men seem to come in threes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Three Happiness restaurant in Chicago's Chinatown district. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wedges are basically triangular and from splitting wood for clubs and canoos to rocks for obelisks and pyramids have been very useful for ages. Neither a square chip of rock nor a round pebble could achieve the same tasks. So there is a long tradition of interest in triangular objects. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See Benford's law. Actually, there are more things in twos or ones than threes, but three is more unusual so you note and remember it. 92.28.242.240 (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Good speech writers know the rule of three very well. Listen to your politicians. They'll often repeat similar things three times to add emphasis. Astronaut (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And good answers often come in three sentences. See above. Bye! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the article now, but we used to have one on the "comic triple", which is two straight lines followed by a joke. There is also the triple take, and I can't find that article either. And in lawsuits you can have treble damages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

DOing research for a Wikipedia article

I recently asked this at the help desk and received a rather unhelpful boilerplate response including a link to a page that didnt answer my question at all, so I'll ask it again here as an overall knowledge-question. I wish to contribute some content to an existing WIkipedia article. I have some books on the topic that I'd like to use as sources. Should I read all the way through the books (cover-to-cover) and then skim back to find the facts and put them where there supposed to be, or just skim the relevant paragraphs in the book and put the facts in with a citation. I know ideally I should do the former but these are rather long books and my time is limited. PS: I am not at all interested in creating an account, and have one (unused) should the need for one ever arise. 76.235.111.140 (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So long as the facts you add are useful to people's understanding of the article's subject, it does not matter whether you read and revisit, or merely pick out nuggets. Articles can, absolutely, be built piecemeal, sentence by sentence. Bottom line: whichever you prefer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to understand what you are writing about. If you are confident that you understand the topic adequately to be sure that you are putting valid information into the article, without reading the whole book, then okay. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

September 8

which fish is this?

Can somebody look at this image and tell me what fish is this? http://j.imagehost.org/view/0099/muru_fish --117.204.88.187 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I spotted a couple of references to "muru fish" as a type of fish eaten in India, but they all left the scientific name blank. Looie496 (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was watching a show...

Dinner With the Band and they were making a dish with butternut squash. It was uncooked and they were slicing it and the knives were going through like butter, easily slicing right through with little effort. Meanwhile, every time I've ever made butternut squash it very tough and difficult to cut when raw. So what the hell version of butternut squash was this? It looked exactly like the kind they have in my local supermarket, but it's obviously not, or they did something to it. It wasn't cooked though.--162.84.161.15 (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No way. Even at the restaurant with razor-blade-sharp knives, it takes some work to get through those suckers. Unless they were horrifically overripe, those were cooked. → ROUX ₪ 06:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ginsu knives? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is sometimes confusing, but TV shows reflect reality. They have a reality that is all their own - one that communicates. Doubtless the cooking was ancilliary to the story. Thus a struggle to cut a squash would detract from the story. So soften the squash.Froggie34 (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Even 'reality' shows aren't above substituting a staged shot when the real shot didn't go as planned. They may have prepared the food like you would expect, complete with awkward wrestling with the squash and then substituted a scene shot afterward with cooked squash or fake squash or whatever.

I can't think of a way to verify that though.

Not having seen the scene in question were they using heavy knives and taking advantage of the blade's momentum? People can get surprising results by swinging heavy blades like they were cleavers. (In fact, sometimes they surprise themselves and need to go to a hospital.)APL (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A properly sharpened knife works MUCH better than a dull one; if you've ever handled a properly maintained chef's knife, it makes a WORLD of difference. It really can cut through really tough food quite amazingly. --Jayron32 02:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

US legislation regarding religious hatred ?

Dove World Outreach Center's plans to hold "International Burn a Qu'ran Day" have attracted widespread criticism. However, as far as I can tell from what I have read, the only legal offence that has been discussed in relation to this event is that they will be breaking a local fire prevention ordinance that prohibits the "open burning of books", for which they could be fined. In the UK, anyone who attempted to organise a public burning of the Qu'ran (or of any religious text) would risk being charged under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which says "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". Is there no similar legislation in the US ? Gandalf61 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See our bit on hate speech in the United States. Basically, the First Amendment means that the answer to your question is "no". If they're not specifically inciting imminent violence (and they're probably not), then the free expression in question is likely protected. — Lomn 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You may also be interested in this article; I'm sure many other sites are also addressing the question. — Lomn 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no crime against being an utter fucking moron. General Petraeus also noted that it would probably be harmful to the troops. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That said, this goes beyond self-contained moronishness (and as a counter-example, it is often illegal not to wear a seat belt -- a clear case of legislating against personal moronity); it has the clear potential to incite violence somewhere -- just not imminently among the people actually at the event. As I understand it, the US is really fairly unusual in leaving this sort of thing legal, so I think it deserves a little more than a "there's no crime in..." brush-off. — Lomn 00:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Part of the rationale behind free speech is "there is no antiseptic like the light of day", in that not only are good ideas allowed to flourish in an environment of freedom, but the truly bad ideas become rather obviously bad. This event is no exception; it's much better to let the idiots of the world self-identify in this way. It makes it so much easier to keep track of them. --Jayron32 02:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Virgins

What percentage of people in Western Civilization die as virgins? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar4u664 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this is something that could be measured very well since medically speaking, this is not something you can determine during an autopsy for either gender. Googlemeister (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make a wild assumption here about your age and status and link you to succeedsocially.com.--178.167.133.77 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

the truly perfect pitching performance

How long has a MLB pitcher managed to throw only strikes from the start of the game? I know that a perfect game involves no batters reaching base, but how many innings have had only strikes thrown? Googlemeister (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering a slightly different, but hopefully still interesting, question, the fewest pitches thrown in a complete game was 58 by Charley Barrett in 1944. Addie Joss threw a complete game in 74 pitches, the lowest pitch count for a perfect game. A great many "strike-only" innings have been thrown, as balls hit into play are counted as strikes. We also have an article on Major League Baseball pitchers who have struck out three batters on nine pitches. — Lomn 16:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, Larsen's perfect game was 97 pitches. I think he only got to 3 balls on a batter or two. (Nowadays, if he had 3 more pitches, he'd have been lifted.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)There are no official records kept on pitches as such. Many teams do keep such records nowadays, for evaluation of their pitchers, and you might find some of that info by googling, but it would be anecdotal and recent. The record for strikeouts in a 9-inning game is 20, which has happened several times and I don't think any of them were no-hitters. The record for strikeouts at the start of game (as of 2007) was 9, set in 1884, and the modern record is 8. The overall record for consecutive strikeouts in any span in a game (as of 2007) was 10. You're really not likely to see a pitcher throw nothing but strikes, because if he stays in the strike zone he's going to get hit and eventually relieved. Pitchers mix up the pitch style, speed and placement; a lot of strikeouts are achieved by getting the batter to swing at something that's outside the strike zone, but that doesn't always work and the pitch is likely to be called a "ball". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In question #3 in this column from 1984, Cecil Adams scolded the very idea of trying to rank perfect games by number of pitches or the like. "The number of pitches thrown during a perfect game is no more relevant than the number of brush strokes used to paint the Mona Lisa." Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A stat like that says maybe as much about the ineptitude of the opposition on that day, as the skill of the pitcher. I'm sure if Roger Clemens in his prime were to face a little league team, he could well throw 81 consecutive strikes. However, if a pitcher gets significantly above 100 pitches, he typically starts to tire and becomes more vulnerable. Bert Blyleven ridicules the pitch count thing by saying, "What happens when you get above 100? Do you explode?" Well, too often the answer is yes. Having said that, the question is, What is the highest quantity of pitches thrown in a perfect game (where known - the earliest known is Joss)? Turns out, it's David Wells, at 120, fittingly against the Twins. I suspect Bert had some mixed emotions about that one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So there is no instances where an MLB pitcher has gone through more then 1 straight inning throwing nothing but strikes because those stats are not kept? Baseball loves stats, and I figured they would have had this one. A complete game in just 58 pitches is pretty impressive though. Googlemeister (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There is apparently no known instance. I'm impressed that anyone even had that stat from 1944. But I have trouble believing it's the definitive record, as for example the shortest game ever pitched was under an hour, and the pitch count had to be very low in that one - I think they had a train to catch and they were literally swinging at everything. Consider that we don't even know the pitch counts for perfect games prior to the one tossed by Joss, and that Retrosheet has play-by-play only for certain years, and no pitch counts (except maybe for perfect games). So this info must not be easy to find. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the box score for that 1944 game: [10] Retrosheet doesn't have the play-by-play yet, and there's nothing there about pitch counts, but that doesn't prove anything. He did throw a 2-hitter and the game only went 75 minutes, so that tells us something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While baseball does track an absurd number of statistics, I think you're looking for significance where there simply may not be any. Here's another list of 3-pitch innings (naturally, all strikes). Note, however, that one could also have two consecutive innings of "just strikes" if you follow a perfect 3-strikeout inning with one that goes single-single-double-homer-single-flyout-doubleplay. Still (potentially) all strikes, but wholly underwhelming -- and as such, not tracked to the degree that one finds it highlighted as a feat of note. — Lomn 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I mention it just because it's possible that some discussants may not be aware of it: Any pitch at which the batter swings is a strike, regardless of its location or of whether the batter connects or puts it in play in fair territory. Some of the above comments seemed to me to suggest, though I don't know that that was the intention, that a perfect game consisting of nothing but strikes would necessarily consist of nothing but strikeouts. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you could have 27 consecutive fly balls to the warning track, or even leaping saves of potential home runs (as with Buehrle's 9th inning) and you would have the minimum possible number of pitches, 27 - all strikes, and every one of them tempting the manager to yank the pitcher, especially if the game was close or scoreless. (Actually, that's pretty close to Bill Veeck's description of Bobo Holloman's no-hitter, although it wasn't a perfect game.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Bert Blyleven might want to talk to Dave Dravecky, and Joel Zumaya, whose arms did explode, pretty much. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. I recall the Dravecky footage vividly. Ouch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but that had nothing to do with pitch count — that was cancer. Or at least cancer-ish. The Dave Dravecky and desmoid tumor articles appear to contradict one another on that point. Possibilities appear to be: (1) the articles assume different definitions of cancer; (2) the articles assume different definitions of desmoid tumor; (3) one or both of the articles is factually wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't Know .....

Is there anyone who knows that why on all the advertisements and also even if we go into and watch showrooms, why time is always set on 10.10 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This was asked some months ago. I don't recall if there was a specific answer. But as to why analog clocks are typically set on 10:10 or 8:20, as they have been for countless decades, I've always assumed it was because it made the clocks look symmetrical and attractive, and you could see the hour and minute hands clearly. Now, why they would continue to take that approach for a digital clock, can only be attributed to the "we've always done it that way" mindset. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We used to have a page on 10:08, but it got deleted. Some of it can be found under User:LarryMac/10:08. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Snopes has this to say about it. Basically, it looks nice. Matt Deres (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See also Aug 2006, Nov 2006, Jan 2007, July 2007, Nov 2007, and Feb 2010. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was one of the deletionists' finest hours. There was also a deletion discussion, but this suggests that the deletion discussion has itself been deleted. --Viennese Waltz 06:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know why it's red there. Anyway, I found the discussion here. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Malformed URL, that's why. Only just noticed it. Thanks for the link. --Viennese Waltz 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Analogue clocks are set to 10:10 because it appears as though the hands are 'smiling', creating a more malleable mindset in the buyer. This carried over to displays of digital clocks via grandfathering. → ROUX ₪ 03:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't just make up stuff you think sounds good and post it as fact. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be a total jerk. Please also don't assume that just because you have no idea what you're talking about, nobody else does either. google answers another site snopes. Perhaps you would like to try again without embarrassing yourself? → ROUX ₪ 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that was uncalled for Matt Deres. The resemblance to a smile may not be the only reason why 10:10 is used but it is certainly one of the reasons. --Viennese Waltz 14:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'll note that Roux's answer would have been better had he provided the references in the first place -- and Matt Deres had already linked Snopes in his answer above -- and that I don't see a phrase resembling "malleable mindset" on any of the three pages linked. — Lomn 15:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Try setting an analoge clock to 20 to 4 and see the sad face that results.Froggie34 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but then you've got the dope-heads giggling. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

??? 3:40 isn't the same thing as 4:20... Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Who said that it was? And to be pedantic 20 to 4 does not give an exact angle. I can't be bothered to work it out but about 19 minutes to would give a more central pair of hands. Wonder how long it will be before this tired old subject comes back to haunt us?Froggie34 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, Matt Deres said it was. You're right though, it should really be 10:08 rather than 10:10. --Viennese Waltz 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I said it was what? Froggie mentioned pointing the hands to 4:20 and I linked to the article about the dope meme; I'm not sure why Googlemeister brought up 3:40 at all. Perhaps he was picturing the "sad" face and forgot what Froggie had actually written and instead had figured that he probably really meant "twenty to". An analogue clock at 4:20 would have the hands nearly on top of one another. Matt Deres (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No.. Froggie said 20 to 4, not 20 after 4. Also, you gonna retract your nonsense above? → ROUX ₪ 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions of Temple of Venus Genetrix

I have search all the articles on the Temple of Venus Genetrix in the Forum of Julius Caesar but cannot find the dimensions of the temple. Could you tell me what are the length and width dimensions of the Temple of Venus Genetrix?70.255.80.243 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

According to page 94 of The architecture of Roman temples: the republic to the middle empire by John W. Stamper: "It measured 23 meters wide by 33 meters long (78 by 112 Roman feet). This excluded the speaker's platform, which was added by Octavian and increased the podium size to 29.50 meters wide by 39 meters long (100 by 132 Roman feet)." Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Waving on boats

Is there any reason why people on boats wave to other people on boats? Historical? Psychological? Practical? Thanks! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I once watched the white fish fleet leave harbour in Aberdeen Scotland one late Sunday evening a few years ago. It seemed that no boat could leave harbour until the church bells signalled midnight had passed for superstition/religious/custom or luck reasons. And there were literally hundreds of folk there waving off their husbands, brothers, sons, lovers etc., etc., as they left for their perilous 2 weeks at sea, leaving behind them their alternate crew colleagues who would enjoy their 2 week off-duty sojourn. But it also turned out that many of the wives and girlfriends were making sure that their "loved" ones were actually leaving port so that they (the ladies) could relax in the arms of said alternate crew members without fear of said "loved" ones discovering their infidelities. No one seemed to care that everyone knew what was going on but I guess it was a question of what the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't need to grieve over. I am sure there will be many other reasons but this one is my abiding memory. 92.30.199.74 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't believe it. How many did you interview on oath? Or are you just repeating what a bloke in the pub told you? 92.15.20.52 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is totally speculative, but maybe they just wave because they're having a good time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is simply to acknowledge and recognise each others' presence - they are having the same experience of being in a particular place at a particular time, which may become important to share later, for instance if there is an accident or some other unusual occurrence. There is often the same acknowledgement of others when hikers or walkers meet or pass each other in isolated places on land. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed similar things anytime two people meet who are using atypical vehicles (i.e. not cars). Bus drivers, for example, seem to always wave at each other, despite the fact they cross each other's paths very regularly. Motorcycle drivers do it as well. I've always assumed it was a kind of communal cohesion kind of thing, where you're acknowledging your shared experience. It may even be that people are just generally friendly and use even as flimsy an excuse as this to reach out to their "friends they haven't met". Matt Deres (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Public transit drivers do this in lieu of "Hey Jo, how's your day going?" that you might find in an office-based workplace. I think people on boats do this to be "Hey, I'm on a boat and it is awesome and I am including you in my awesome world. → ROUX ₪ 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Driving Instructors do it too - as one myself I spend half my lessons waving to other Instructors... Tis just a way of aknowledging people in the same situation as yourself I suppose - the same is probably true for boat folk... gazhiley.co.uk 08:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely - I live by the Canal du Midi and tour boats loaded with day trippers pass regularly. Always the occupants wave and smile. It seems to be 'I'm having a great and exciting time please acknowledge and smile back'. Have to say that most residents simply ignore what, for them, is an everyday, routine occurance. Until, perhaps, they find themselves on a tour whilst on their holiday? Incidentally I have not noticed coach passengers waving. They seem almost morose by comparison.Froggie34 (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just plain camaraderie. The feeling that "I'm doing something that I enjoy that a lot of society doesn't, and I see you feel the same way". Dog walkers do the same with a nod, unusual car drivers do it to each other (VW Beetles and Land Rovers I've seen quite a few times). -- WORMMЯOW  10:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They're excited because they're on a boat! Also, people with baby carriages always seem to acknowledge each other too, as if having a baby is some kind of secret club. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari Post-production Test drive.

I just watched a fascinating Sky Anytime documentary showing the entire manufacture, assembly and post production test-drive of a typical 200,000 Euro sports car at Ferrari's factory and test-circuit in Northern Italy. In closing, the commentator said each car took about 2/3 months of expert construction and a waiting time per customer of 2 years. My question is, each car was shown being put through its paces on Ferrari's own private test track adjacent to the factory, and also on the open road in that region - so would a set of "test" tyres be used during said road tests, or would the customer take delivery of his/her car with it wearing the same tyres used during the road tests? Thanks. 92.30.199.74 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

I would venture to guess that new t(y)ires would be put on the car, as the test t(y)ires would have been shredded by the testing. → ROUX ₪ 03:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They probably keep separate 'testing' tyres at the factory/test centre, and then fit different ones when they are transported for delivery, as Roux says, the test tyres would probably too damaged to be used safely. Chevymontecarlo - alt 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 9

What is "WANTYNU"?

I've seen the word WANTYNU used in some EMS blogs, but have no idea what is stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NYPATROL (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They are, among other things, a company that makes oxygen tank keys, from what I can tell. See [11]. It appears to derive from the phrase "We ain't nothing till you need us" (according to the website I linked). It appears to be an acronym derived from a bit of EMS culture, implying that EMS people tend to be poorly regarded up until they actually save one's life. --Jayron32 04:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you find the print date for a dollar bill by its serial number?

Well, basically what the title says: Is it possible to determine when a dollar bill was issued based on its serial number? I know you can find out where its printed, but I'd like to know as exactly as possible when a certain bill was issued. Asav (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The article on Bureau of Engraving and Printing has some links to other places that might provide an answer, unless there's some security issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Tongue drum

Tongue drum is a redirect to slit drum, but that article contains no reference to tongue drums. Is a tongue drum actually a kind of slit drum, or is it a different beast? See here for a brief description of the tongue drum. --Viennese Waltz 08:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They're synonymous. "Slit drum" is used more often in scholarly literature of musicology or music anthropology. Functionally, "tongue drum" is perhaps more descriptive, as the tongues are the resonating parts (while "slit" refers to the removed material). The tongues are also called "lips" sometimes, but I've never encountered the usage of "lip drum". Traditionally the term "slit drum" is more frequent than "tongue drum". ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, they might not be completely synonymous. Tongue drum might be a subset of slit drum, as you already hinted at. Instruments with only one slit, such as this example from Vanuatu, don't really have tongues at all, so it would be misleading to call them 'tongue drums'. Technically, a wood block is a slit drum too, but not a tongue drum. Hmm ... ---Sluzzelin talk 11:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

After looking around a bit more, I stand by my claim that slit drum is found far more frequently in literature than "tongue drum", even when discussing multi-pitched, multi-tongued instruments such as the teponaztli. The term tongue drum is more specific (excluding uni-slits) but despite its potential usefulness just hasn't gained traction in academia. The term is often found in the context of DIY instrument-making, music therapy, new-age spiritualism, and to a lesser extent in marketing of percussion instrument manufacturers. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you quite finished? ;) Seriously, thanks very much for the most helpful answers. --Viennese Waltz 11:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mid-air collisions over major cities

The news of a near miss over London last year got me thinking. Has there ever been a mid-air collision over a major city; one that resulted in flaming debris raining down into the streets below? I know the September 11 attacks might qualify, but that was a deliberate act of terrorism and not the kind of accident/air traffic control error I am asking about. Astronaut (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See our article 1993 Auckland mid-air collision for one example that also shut down a major motorway at rush hour Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Aeroméxico Flight 498 hit a Piper Archer and fell into a residential neighbourhood in Cerritos, California, killing 15 people and injuring a further 8. Golden West Airlines Flight 261 scattered debris over a residential area, but no-one on the ground was injured. Lastly (I think that's all, at least for commercial airliners) there's the 1960 New York air disaster, in which a DC-8 struck a Super Constellation over New York, killing six people (and I assume a dog) in Park Slope, Brooklyn. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If barrage balloons count, I would expect at least a couple of German fighters during the early 1940s to have qualified for this, but our article does not actually mention if these balloons actually downed any aircraft at all, so perhaps they were only a psychological ploy. Also, as part of an act of warfare, it might not exactly meet your accident/error criteria. Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what is a major city, but there is the Stockport air disaster in the 1960s although nobody on the ground was killed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding barrage balloons, I'm trying to find a good source, but I have found numbers like 24 piloted enemy aircraft and 278 missiles destroyed by barrage balloons, and at least 40 Allied aircraft as well. This is just WWII; I've not seen numbers for WWI yet. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a mid-air collision, but Pan Am Flight 103 made a mess of Lockerbie, where eleven residents were killed.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The 2007 Phoenix news helicopter collision occurred over a park downtown. 68.104.175.130 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Stockport wasn't a mid-air collision; Lockerbie wasn't and isn't a major city. --John (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

EST

I read the EST but I am confused. When do the clocks change again? Do they go forward or back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No money back, no guarantee (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Spring forward, fall back" is the old reminder saying. It varies between North America and Europe. See Daylight saving time for more info, but in the U.S. it's currently the first Saturday night / Sunday morning in November. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If by EST you mean the same timezone of New York City, then that date is Nov 7 this year. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

By EST do you mean European Summer Time? The information given there is quite clear: the clocks go back on 31 October. The dates of clock adjustments vary from one country to another.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Eastern Standard Time (but not the American and I don't only mean US one) then from Time in Australia the answer appears to be first Sunday of October, in those places that actually observe Daylight Saving Time. The clocks go forward on that date Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

soccer world cup shots on goal

What is the highest number of shots on goal for both teams combined that resulted in a 0-0 tie during a world cup game? Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That question is unanswerable. Football is not like some other sports in that it is not obsessed with statistics. No official records for numbers of shots on goal are kept, they are the domain of TV broadcasters, who obviously have details of only a tiny percentage of the thousands of World Cup games that have been played since 1930. --Viennese Waltz 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Do they record saves by the GK? Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, afraid not. The only officially recorded statistics are on things like the score (obviously), the scorers, bookings, sendings off and so on. By the way, and just for your information, the term GK is never used, only "goalkeeper". --Viennese Waltz 15:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the Guardian ([12]), shots on goal have been officially recorded at the World Cup since 2002. The Guardian figures pre-2002 are generally just the number of goals scored, and it's not obvious why in a few instances they've given a higher - or even a lower - figure for shots on goal. Warofdreams talk 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Higher - some of the shots on goal were saved. Lower - one or more goals were scored not from a shot on goal: e.g. from shots off-target but deflected into the goal, from non-shot own-goals by defenders, possibly even from the goalkeeper accidentally throwing the ball into his own net (see Gary Sprake). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC).

The FIFA statistics on the 2010 World Cup finals are here - showing that there were seven 0-0 draws in the finals - and the information on shots is here. They suggest that, of those seven, the match between Paraguay and Japan had the most shots on goal - 20 - the next highest being the match between Portugal and Brazil which had 8. There's a report on the game here, which certainly doesn't suggest a game of high drama. The wealth of statistics on the FIFA site suggests that football is rapidly catching up with other sports in terms of the number of useless statistics collected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not useless for sports gamblers... Googlemeister (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

age

Why do some small animals live ages like parrots 60 years or queen ants 30 years, but big animals like dogs only 15 years, when humans live 100 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bffmff34 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because 30 years in humans is different to 30 years in dogs. See Aging in dogs. Chevymontecarlo - alt 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The question-asker understands that dogs age faster, he is asking why. APL (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because a creature's longevity is not dependent upon its size or mass.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So what is it dependent on, then? --Viennese Waltz 15:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Though there does seem on the surface anyways, to be at least some correlation between longevity and average size in mammals anyways. I don't know if these correlations apply with birds or insects though. Googlemeister (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Actually, that's not entirely true: within a given class, larger creatures do tend to have longer lives. speaking in terms of evolution, though, there are a few related theories. I think r/K selection theory might be an appropriate place to begin. that theory says that longevity and birthrate are inversely related, based on whether parents pour all of their energies into producing huge quantities of offspring (the 'breed and die' behavior of salmon or the large brood sizes of field mice), or pour all their energy into raising, teaching, and caring for a small number of offspring (as in Elephants, dolphins, and humans). the former species tend to be short-lived and the latter long-lived. Dogs are somewhere in the middle on that scale - social animals with medium sized broods that do some care and training of offspring. --Ludwigs2 15:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)