Do any Masonic lodges provide job boards exclusive to their members? NeonMerlin 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do, but the jobs are only availible for positions in the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the rest of us never know exactly which jobs are in the Illuminati. —Tamfang (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Freemasonry is not about preferential treatment. There may be jobs within lodges that are only open to Masons (due to seeing otherwise-secret rituals or materials), but Masons don't advertise jobs for Masons only. It's possible that, depending on the specific Mason involved, they will have a preference for hiring other members; one saying attributed to a Mason is (roughly) "If I leave a fellow Mason alone in a room with my daughter and my wallet, I don't even have to ask myself if I trust him." This may lead some Masons towards preferring to hire fellow members, as there is a standard of character expected. [ roux ] [x] 09:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but would his daughter have nicked some cash from his wallet? Would his fellow-mason have ignored or stopped his daughter? -- SGBailey (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... she had shifty eyes. [ roux ] [x] 10:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole point that the Mason would be too busy with the daughter to steal the wallet? With someone else you never know, maybe he's gay or more interested in the money then the girl. (No offence intended if you are a Mason) Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example on the Kar 98K: Media:En-Kar98k rifle.jpeg On the Arisaka:

What is the function of it? I'm thinking it's something like a cleaning rod. I've also seen some pictures without the rod below the barrel, so I'm guessing it's not critical for the operation of the rifle. 67.169.56.73 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's a removable cleaning rod. Most of the cleaning components are stored in the stock, but the rod under the barrel is a legacy of the days when muskets had ramrods stored in that position (and, depending on the length of the rifle, the rod may not fit in the stock). FiggyBee (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On photoshop the cursor doesn't do the function I have chosen for it (brush tool), and it just looks like the hand tool. I have tried making it do every function, but it stays looking like the hand tool and not doing anything. Does anyone know what I have done and how to fix it? Thanks. 92.0.148.25 (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried 1. closing photoshop and opening it again, 2. selecting a different tool, 3. trying it with a different image file? The answers to whether those work or don't work can diagnose the problem. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a hispanic trapped in a anglo's body. What should I do about it?DahiJynnuByzzuf (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop thinking about it and just get on with life.--89.168.224.110 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is physically impossible, because the body you are born with contains all of your DNA.

On the mental level, it's possible that after some soul searching you realize you feel some affinity toward Hispanic people? If that's the case, it doesn't matter what body you are in; you can be green with blue stripes and help them, though they might look at you funny. You could volunteer in various inner cities, if you're American, to help Hispanics. Or, you could join the Peace Corps, which is not just for younger poeple; anyone can volunteer. There are also other organizations which would allow you go go to a Latin American country and help with some volunteer projects.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being hispanic/latino isn't an ethnicity, it's a cultural identity. See Latino. Latin American people are of (literally) all different ethnic backgrounds. Darkspots (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you need to go to sweden and have a race change operation. Gzuckier (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reach for my glasses before getting out of bed. Those of you who wear contacts, where do they fit in your morning routine? I can't readily imagine making them the first agendum. —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people I've known who wear lenses tend to also have a pair of glasses. Glasses go on when waking up, lenses put in after the morning shower. YMMV. [ roux ] [x] 09:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My contacts go in at the very last minute before leaving the house. I like to wake up and enjoy that sleepy feeling, where everything still looks blurry. I shower, shave, get dressed, have a coffee, all before the lenses go in. Its only when the lenses go in that I feel truly awake (because that's when the blurry shapes become real objects). But when I have a hangover I won't even go near the contact lenses all day, I'd rather walk around in the blurry haze.124.182.99.22 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put them in after showering but before shaving. Can't shave without them in as I wouldn't be able to see what I'm doing, unless it's the weekend when I very often don't wear them at all. It's good to give your eyes a rest from wearing them one day a week. As for the evening I normally take them out soon after getting home from work. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally wear my glasses until I shower for the morning, then put my contacts in as soon as I get out (when my fingers are the cleanest, before they get gunked up with toothpaste and after shave and all that). I have never known anyone who wears contacts, even those you supposedly can sleep in, not to have a "back-up" pair of glasses. I used to sleep in mine, and take them out only on weekends, but my allergies got worse as I got older, and my eyes just started to need the rest... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually wake up, start the coffee, sit on couch, smoke a cig, get up grab coffee, sit back down, have my coffee, then go put contacts in. I actually dont own a pair if glasses. Nick910 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any golf holes in the world that have never been birdied (or better)? 124.180.143.48 (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe at the l-o-o-o-n-g courses described here? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia cannot give legal advice, where can I go for free legal advice in New Zealand? To be more specific, I have resigned from my job and my employer wants to stop me moving to another company in the same field (I work in product development/technical sales). I'm looking for some free legal advice on whether or not they can do this. I will find an employment law lawyer if needed, but I just to find out if this is a necessary expense before I do. Thanks. 202.74.214.212 (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does New Zealand have a Bar Association? A licencing/professional body for lawyers? They would usually be the best people to call about such a matter. [ roux ] [x] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to its website, the New Zealand Law Society was established by statute and regulates all lawyers practising in New Zealand. The same website has a "Find a lawyer" page, which contains some very basic information about finding a lawyer.

The New Zealand government has a Department of Labour, which may be a source of information or help. Its website has an employment law page, which contains information about statutes and case law. A web search turns up a recent case related to non-competition clauses in employment agreement (Lee v Air New Zealand Ltd (AA 347/07, 5 Nov 2007, A Dumbleton)), a summary of which can be found in the January/February 2008 edition of Employment Cases Summary. I don't know the what significance that case may or may not have. (I am not a lawyer).

Before you seek help, you may want to gather some relevant information, such as a copy of your employment agreement and the grounds on which your employer is trying to stop you from moving to another company.

Needless to say, the above is not legal advice. Good luck. --98.114.146.32 (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your line of work, it is quite common for such a restriction to be written in to any employment contract that you signed when you started work there. If there is no such written agreement it's difficult to see how he can stop you. There are numerous websites where you can get free informal legal advice (mostly US or UK based of course), but since anyone could be supplying that advice you will need to follow up any leads yourself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Shantavira is right. You should start by taking your contract and look for the so-called no competition clause. If the contract you signed had such a clause it's likely your employer is in his right to stop you. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe such clauses are unenforceable in some jurisdictions, so if the clause it there it's still worth asking for advice. Of course, if it isn't there and your employer tries to enforce it anyway, you'll still need advice. Depending on what your employer is actually doing, hiring a lawyer may be unavoidable - there's only so far free legal advice can take you. --Tango (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, at least I have a starting point now. 203.211.106.103 (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their British equivalent, what about New Zealand Citizen's Advice Bureaux? They should be able to offer free help on legal matters.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a lot of petroplayers (Russia) are independent, why would anyone want to restrict how much they can drill when others are not "playing fair?" Second question: What about the minor players who are members of OPEC? What interest does Ecuador have in being a member? It's not like they can do much to influence the market so why would they voluntarily earn a little less money?

Lotsofissues (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OPEC is like a union for oil-producing nations. You might as well ask, "if there are a lot of potential workers out there, why would any union go on strike?" Obviously OPEC has to balance carefully when it under-produces, as it does open up a market for additional players, or even worse could lead to long-term energy independence investment or investment in alternative energy sources that would undermine their long-term profit potential. Ecuador gets more international clout being a member of OPEC than they would otherwise, most likely, but I don't know the details. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One important fact to consider is that any oil producing nation has a limited amount of oil available to drill. By choosing to produce less now they aren't earning less money overall, they are just deferring when they earn that money (as long as they're careful, as the anon says). They know they can't produce oil forever, so they want to only sell what oil they have when the price is at its highest (roughly speaking, it's a little more complicated in practice). --Tango (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally by agreeing to only produce a certain amount of oil (even if some members do cheat a little) OPEC can (partly) control global oil prices. If all the members of OPEC just produced as much oil as possible, global oil prices would tend to drop. The larger producers could still make a profit just off the economies of scale. However the small producers couldn't make much of a profit, and if they cut production would simply lose that revenue stream without affecting global prices. For large oil producers it makes sense because they can make a larger profit then if there were other large producers driving down the price. It's a sort of Prisoner's dilemma where everyone gets a slightly lower profit by cooperating but everyone comes out ahead. Tobyc75 (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the question is, wouldn't Ecuador benefit from OPEC's control of global oil prices even without being a member of OPEC? TresÁrboles (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably would, but that's the wrong question to ask. What you need to consider is how much Ecuador benefits from countries with similar production levels being members (since if Ecuador wasn't a member, why should other small producers be members?). According to our article on OPEC, members with quotas under a million barrels a day account for 7% of the total of OPEC quotas, which is small, but still enough to have some influence on prices. It's also worth noting that Ecuador isn't actually producing its full quota, so it's not losing anything by being a member. --Tango (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMET CHANGE, 50HRS ENVIRONMENTAL VIEDO ” THROUGH WHERE THE RIVERS FLOW"NEED YOUR HELP.

WE “FHEP’’ FEDERATION FOR HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION’ IS AN ACTIVE NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION IN INDIA.WE ALREADY DONE AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTARY” THROUGH WHERE THE RIVERS FLOW". WE COMPLET 10 HRS OF 50 HRS DOCUMENTARY ABOUT A RIVER’ NILA' AND THE PROJCET IS SCREENED MORE THAN 100 VIENWS INCLUD THE INTERNATIONAL VIDEO Festivals and schools as awarnes on environment protection. IT TAKES you THROUGH COMTEMPORARY ISSUES OF DAMING THE FLOWS, SAND MINING, AND SILTING UNMINDFUL OF THE ATROCITIES BY MAN, THE DOCUMENTARY TELL US QUIET FLOWS THE NILA, BUT WE HAVE NO MONEY TO FINISH THE PROJECT.WE ALREADY INVEST MORE THAN 50 LAKHS TO THE PROJECT.which agencies are give the grants to a indian ngo to awarness programme on environment protection project —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAJITHANCHAL (talk • contribs) 17:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't type in ALL CAPS - it's the internet equivalent of shouting. Exxolon (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The India NGO awards[1], The UPS Foundation [2] and the Small Grants Programme (SGP) [3].W.i.k.i.p.e.d.i.a - Reference desk guy (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. what is the supply chain of Starbuck?Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. what is starbucks supply network design?Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3.how is starbucks supply chain configured?Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4.what are the capacity of starbucks operation?Spindomer (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to all of these questions is: Do your own homework. Dismas|^(talk) 19:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You could try reading Starbucks and take it from there. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No clue about the last three, but Starbuck gets her supplies from one source. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were workmen requiered to be left inside the ships hull after hot riveting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.181.202 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, although it has been rumoured about many ships and structures that someone was accidentally sealed inside. See SS Great Eastern#Break up for one treatment of the topic. FiggyBee (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are things really as bad as they seem, or will everything sort itself out eventually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.214.156 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know how bad they seem to you - so we can't address that. But financial crises have always sorted themselves out in the past - it's hard to see how this one is any different. SteveBaker (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gas prices are down, so it seems to me that it got better already. Useight (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly a good indicator. The main reasons gas prices got better is because:

• Oil is sold in US currency and the dollar increased in value (normally, I'd say that's a good thing - but right now, this will just kill US exports and encourage imports - which is the last thing US businesses need). Given the horrible state of the US economy - it's rather remarkable that the dollar would recover so strongly - but sadly that's because the rest of the world fell into the same hole that the US is in - and that meant that as bad as the US is doing - everyone else is doing badly too.
• The global economy shut down really abruptly - that means that business is using less fuel and the laws of supply and demand drives the price down.

So no - I strongly disagree that the low oil prices are a good sign - they are symptom of just how bad things actually are.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course <everything will sort itself out> just don't expect things to go back to as they were before. Pre-crash there was far too much debt to sustain an unreasonable lifestyle. On past evidence that will happen again in about 6o years. In the immediate future belts will be pulled in, and luxuries will cease to be regarded as necessities.90.9.215.168 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

We didn't really get enough detail from the OP. You are assuming the financial crisis is meant. But he/she could've been talking about their bad hair day. (In which case, maybe this is the answer.) TresÁrboles (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or climate change. Or the obesity crisis. Or the health system. Or the education system. Or corruption. Or godlessness. Or the decline in moral standards. or ......... -- JackofOz (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the economy has always recovered eventually in the past, therefore it will recover in the future is an inductive statement, and inductive reasoning is notoriously hard to justify. The problem of induction states that the only way to justify induction is with induction, thereby creating a circular argument and rendering the reasoning invalid. In other words we have NO rational justification for a belief that that things will EVER “get better.” --S.dedalus (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't say things will definitely recover, but the fact that they always have before makes it highly likely. There have been X recessions before and we've recovered from 100% of them. I'm not a statistician so I'm not sure what the numbers are, but we can conclude with a 95% certainty that the probability of recovery is larger than some pretty big number. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um... based on pure logic, yes things are as bad as they seem, and yes they will get better eventually. Gzuckier (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I own an tv named Funai TV 2002 and I want to know what year it's from I searched google and the funai article, I could not find anything and hey I searched hard on google. 85.220.101.206 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this question is nearly the same as the Selena Vega one but I've always been wondering how old my television is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.101.206 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The model and make you state does not corrrespond to any model/make at Sams Technical Publishing [4], which has repair models covering 6 decades TVs. It does not correspond to any model at the Funai site for sets back to 2002. Please double check the make/model, on the back of the set. Edison (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, the IP looks up to Iceland. I'm not an expert, but it looks like Sams is focused on the US market which may suggest their coverage of non US televisions is less then complete. Given that Iceland is, as with most of the world, PAL or SECAM, I think we can safely presume this TV is not available in the US Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this [5] which mentions the same model in some Denmark usenet group Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and on the back it says - Model: TV 2002 and the make is Funai 85.220.101.206 (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.funai-corp.com is the company. They have only one TV that resembles this name: The "EWF2002". No clue as to dates though. SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this and this is Funai Europe Oda Mari (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in assuming that once an athlete, more specifically a female gymnast, receives sponsorship or funding, she is ineligible for participating in NCAA gymnastic competition? However, from the age of the female gymnasts in the Olympics, it appears that most of them are in their prime at around 16 to 18 years of age- during their high school years. Consequently, if these gymnasts participate in the Olympics and receive sponsorships, they would be rendered ineligible for competition in the NCAA.

So does the NCAA have any top-tier female gymnasts in their competitions? Surely a gymnast can not wait until graduation to turn pro, as they will be around 22 years of age- too old for the sport.

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In our article on Alicia Sacramone: "In September 2006, Sacramone enrolled in Brown University and joined the school's gymnastics team. During the 2006-2007 season, she juggled a full NCAA competition schedule with her elite training at Brestyan's. She was the first female American gymnast since Kelly Garrison in the late 1980s to combine full-time university studies and NCAA competition with elite gymnastics." TresÁrboles (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happens in Baseball and Ice Hockey. Since professional baseball and hockey have no age limits, and indeed also have robust minor league "farm systems", the best players often "go pro" right out of high school (or earlier. Wayne Gretzky famously began his pro career as a 17-year old, and attended high school while playing for Indiana of the old WHA). As a result, the best players out of high school often never play college baseball or hockey. Some players do blossom at the college level in these sports, and they are played at quite a high level, but at any given age the best athletes are already playing professionally in these sports... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<removed> This is not a question - the Ref.Desk is not a place for advertising/spam - even if what you're advertising is a Wikipedia project. SteveBaker (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are samurai represented in modern film and literature? It would be great if someone could provide some links to some information on that topic. Thanks in advance.

BlebBlebBlebBLEB (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article titled Samurai has a large section on Pop Culture, and we have an entire seperate article on Samurai cinema. Hope that will give you a start! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watching an episode from season two of The Unit where the unit was trapped with some regular soldiers at a base in Afghanistan, and in it, for some reason, no one (inexplicably the unit) has night vision or have attachments on their helmets for NVG's. (I remember watching some footage from the recent Russia-Georgia conflict and no one appeared to be have night vision; I guess it was because the footage was in daytime.) This leads me to a question: how common is night vision as standard issue in the US military and in other militaries as well? --Blue387 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be ubiquitous in the US military. Everyone from truck drivers to generals are supposed to have it. But it's heavy and makes the helmet be off-balance - so you would certainly un-clip it from the helmet during daytime. The attachments are pretty standard - I don't understand how they could not have them...but this is fiction - and they don't always get their facts right. The Russians and Georgians almost certainly can't afford to give it to everyone - although both sides definitely have them in smaller quantities. SteveBaker (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on an episode of Generation Kill, which tried to be authentic, the protagonists were driving along in the middle of the night and one of them mentioned that their night vision gave them a huge advantage, and another mentioned "yeah, if you could find a working one in the squad" or something like that. they seemed to make a distinction between two kinds of night vision; maybe the goggles and the sights mounted on their guns? anyway, they seemed to be on verybody's helmetsGzuckier (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many problems with the super-compact helmet-mounted kind:

• They restrict your field of view.
• They destroy your natural dark adaptation so when you take them off, you're blind - even on a moonlit night.
• They eliminate depth and color perception.
• The batteries die (and they are HIDEOUSLY expensive, special batteries that you can't buy in stores).
• Any normal amounts of light level will overload the goggles - and a sufficiently sustained bright light can destroy them.

However, having said that - they are pretty amazing gadgets. About 10 years ago I worked on simulating a fairly modern set of US night vision goggles using computer graphics and we had a couple of pairs on loan. Knowing that they shouldn't be used in daylight, and anxious to find out what they displayed in UTTER darkness, we shut ourselves inside our computer 'server room' - which has no windows. Firstly, the glare from the computer monitors was so bright that you couldn't see a thing - so we turned all of those off. Then the light showing under the doors was also pretty bright - and enough to dazzle the goggles - so we taped around all of them to shut out that light. The LED's on the computers were still dazzling us - so we taped over those with electrical tape - but the light still shone through the electrical tape enough to be noticably bright - so it took about 5 layers to properly block them out. When we finally had it pretty dark - we could see the bottoms of all of the walls were glowing slightly - and this turned out to be light leaking under the wood and sheetrock walls! We also found that several of the PC's in the room had LED's on their disk drives - which although shut inside the case of the computer were shining through the plastic to the extent that we could use the light cast by them onto the opposite wall to make 'shadow puppets' with our hands! In the end, we had to duct-tape around the bottoms of all of the walls and unplug absolutely everything in the room that had an LED anywhere inside or outside before we could get it dark enough that the goggles would start to struggle to make an image. I also did the US Army's night vision training course - which is quite fascinating.

The devices used in gun-sights and missiles and such are not 'strictly' night vision devices, they are infra-red sensors. They see further into the IR than the goggles do and are pretty much totally insensitive to light in the visual spectrum. They see "heat" - which means that things can look rather weird and unnatural (that's somewhat true of night vision goggles too - but to a much lesser extent). However, you can use infra-red in full daylight and get some benefits from doing so (eg you can see a heavily camoflaged tank if it's engine is running and producing an enormous plume of hot exhaust gasses - when it drives off, you can see a ghostly 'trail' of heat left behind where its engine heated up the ground as the tank drove past).

SteveBaker (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to glue some plastic keyboard parts, so need to choose a glue that would do a good job. But there is a bewildering array of plastic glues to choose from, many of which will only glue certain types of plastic...

So would anyone happen to know the type of plastic that computer keyboards are usually made of? --69.113.82.135 (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krazy Glue will certainly work, but it may be too fast acting to be practical. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many glues claim to work on all sorts of plastic. If you prefer to use one that doesn't, why not contact the keyboard manufacturer instead of asking about what plastic is "usually" used? Tell them specifically what part you mean, in case there are different plastics. --Anonymous, 19:32 UTC, November 2, 2008.

Probably more important is to keep in mind some of the side effects. For instance, acetone and plastic cement may disolve some plastics. If you're working on moving parts, that might not be a good idea. In any case, This Site has some ways to identify plastics, but you might need to set your keyboard on fire! For what it is worth, I would guess ABS. --Mdwyer (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a UK version of the LGBT charity, HRC (Human Rights Campaign)?
Or does anyone know the largest LGBT charity in the UK?

12:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichigostar2007 (talk • contribs)

LGBT is a collective term which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender sexual and gender identities.

Have a look through Category:LGBT organizations in the United Kingdom. jnestorius^(talk) 13:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that trains and subways around the world seem to make the same distinctive noise. It's something like click-clack [short pause] click-clack [short pause] click-clack [long pause] click-click.

Does anyone know why this is, or why they even click-clack at all? Louis Waweru  Talk  16:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sound of the wheels passing over the joints in the track. Continuous-welded tracks like those used on high speed rail lines, don't click-clack at all. The trains just kind of "whoosh". Fribbler (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, wow...nice article. Thank you Louis Waweru  Talk  16:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more specifically - the carriage you're riding in has four pairs of wheels - two pairs at each end. So as the carriage crosses the joint in the track, you get "clack-clack" from the first two pairs of wheels - then a pause - then "clack-clack" from the second two pairs. It's noticeable that the regular repetition breaks up as you go over more complicated sections of track such as turn-outs and cross-overs because the joints come much more frequently. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true for most trains, but there are some with other wheel arrangements, generating correspondingly different sounds. Some older, heavy passenger cars have had three axles at each end; I'm not sure if these are still in use. Likewise, some special freight cars for heavy loads have extra axles at each end, up to four or five. On the other hand, freight cars with only two axles are still used in some countries, and some trains (both freight and passenger) have articulated cars with only two axles, or sometimes one, at the joints.

Another point of variation is the track. As well as welded track, there are two styles of jointed track. In Britain, where jointed track is used, the joints on the two rails are aligned with each other. In North American they alternate from one rail to the other, producing a smaller jolt but an increased tendency to rocking motion; and if the joints in one rail are not halfway between those in the other, you get a sound pattern with pairs of pairs of pairs (!) of clicks. --Anonymous, 19:51 UTC, November 2, 2008.

Not exactly relevant, but related. On the southern section of the M25 motorway where it is made from large concrete slabs jointed together, You get a duh-dum ... duh-dum ... duh-dum as the car wheels go over the joins. Also in California grooves were cut in the road to play the William Tell overture - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7627713.stm -- SGBailey (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, I've been playing with it in my head...I'll pay attention to the pattern next time I'm on a train and see if I can infer how the rails are set up. Louis Waweru  Talk  01:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variations in the sound can also be caused by slightly flat-spotted wheels. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of a homework question. I've got to write an essay on "objectivity in historical writing". Are there any good television or radio documentaries on this? Any good reading I should do? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.136.132 (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Historiography and the various articles that spin off from Objectivity may be of some help. As usual, the articles give you a 'big picture' view of the topic - but check the references in the footnotes of each article as they will get you to the primary and secondary sources - you shouldn't use Wikipedia directly in writing essays of this kind. Historiography in particular has a HUGE set of links, references and bibliography. SteveBaker (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your one-stop-shop for reading on the topic is Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession. It's US-centric (which may or may not matter to you) but the issues of objectivity, history, politics, etc. are pretty transcendent, I would imagine. It is a pretty common book so I'm sure your local library has a copy or could get one. A good criticism of Novick is Haskell, “Objectivity is not Neutrality: Rhetoric vs. Practice in Peter Novick’s That Noble Dream,” History and Theory 29, no. 2 (1990), 129-157. His basic argument is in the title—a question of the difference between "objectivity" and "neutrality" (can one be "objective" but not "neutral"?). As SteveBaker implies, a lot of this comes down to what one even means by "objectivity", which is a difficult-to-pin-down term. If you are looking for something a little less high-brow (and more British), you might look at What Is History? by Carr, which is a fun introduction to the question although he is quite controversial amongst historians today. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the US-centric stuff, Eric Foner's Who Owns History: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World is an interesting read that might help you. bibliomaniac15 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone recommend books about bondage? I already have Two Knotty Boys Teaching You The Ropes, are there any more? I'm interested in books that concentrate more on the actual techniques of tying someone up and less about a BDSM master/slave relationship. JIP | Talk 22:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some in references among these "see also" articles in the not only but also Rope bondage and Knot article. There's "Master K's book "Shibari, The art of Japanese Bondage" in Japanese bondage; a review of how-to books is here[6]. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to have a look at this one (link NSFW). I'd write more, but I'm a bit tied up at the moment. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the customer reviews, I don't think that's the right book for me. I don't need lengthy passages about BDSM relationships or overemphasis on safety. What I need is step-by-step instructions like "put this rope there and tie it that way" like there are in Two Knotty Boys Teaching You The Ropes. There are only too few techniques described in that book. So far I have only found two that actually restrict the model's arms (I'm more interested in restrictive than decorative bondage) and look easy enough for me to actually do. JIP | Talk 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what would happen in the US presidential election process this coming Tuesday should one (or both) of the 2 contenders Senators McCain and Obama die before that day. Would their respective running mate(s) simply step up to the plate in their place(s)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.85.64 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This very question has been asked repeatedly over the past few weeks. It's all in the Ref Desk archives (linked to from the top of the page). --Tango (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can't find it in the archives, does anyone remember what one of the threads discussing it was called? It would be good not to have to go through it all again... (Short answer is that it depends on precisely when the candidate dies with respect to votes being cast, the electoral college meeting [they don't literally get together at any point, but you know what I mean] and the president being sworn in.) --Tango (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using this Google search, I see that there is this and this. Dismas|^(talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well found! The second one is the best answer, I think. --Tango (talk) 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder about those FBI guys who are following all of these threads and tracking down the OP's so their every move can be followed for the next couple of days. We should say "Hi!" to them: Hi, nice Mr FBI guy! <wave> SteveBaker (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When people vote for the candidate of their choice on Tuesday, it seems they're really only voting for an electoral college member and the president as such isn't revealed (or voted in) until December, a month later. Do people know they're voting for this, not the individual running for president? (I'm Australian.) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The electoral college is just a formality, because the electoral college members will almost always vote for their candidate. And on the ballot paper (or screen) itself, it is noted that you are actually voting for "electors for Obama/McCain". F (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard of surveys which showed a very large proportion (a majority, I think) of Americans don't know how their elections work. It doesn't really matter, though, because as F says, faithless electors are very rare and have never changed the result of an election. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The electoral college is decidedly not a formality, if it were, minority presidents would be impossible; indeed we have had at least 4-5 presidents who did NOT get 50%+1 of the popular vote and still won the electoral college vote; we have had at least 3 presidential elections where the person who won the plurality (most votes, even if not the majority) did NOT become president; most recently in 2000 when Bush defeated Gore with an electoral college vote of 271-266, but Gore had more popular votes by more than 1/2 a million... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See This archived discussion on the electoral college for a brief description of several times in history that the president did NOT get 50%+1 of the popular vote, but still was elected president... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that F meant that the meetings of the electoral college members in their respective state capitals, the certified letters, the mahogony boxes, etc, etc, are a formality, not the electoral college method itself. By the way, United States presidential election, 1824 makes for some excellent reading—one can only imagine the chaos if a contemporary election were thrown to the House of Representatives for a vote. Darkspots (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. F (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The electoral college "mechanism" is vitally important - it skews the results such that if you live in a heavily one-sided state, your views don't matter - and the candidates won't advertise at you so much (a mixed blessing then!). However, the actual college itself is an historical anachronism with no modern purpose. The odds of one of those electors voting in the opposite way to what they said they would is essentially zero...they'd get lynched if they did it these days...but the consequences of the system that supposes that they'll actually vote are deep indeed. It makes it perfectly possible (as with Bush in 2000) for a president who less people voted for to beat someone who more people actually wanted. The system is predicated around the notion that each US state is truly acting like an independant nation who is electing a president who will only be running the post office and the military. In that case, the idea that you don't want populous states with very one-sided voting to dominate the other states is a valid one. But when the president has as much power as today - and people consider themselves as "Americans" before they consider their 'state-identity' - the system seems very distorted. But the chances of replacing it are near zero - so you'd better just get used to it! SteveBaker (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact seems to be making slow but steady progress. I don't know if it will ever reach the 50% required, but the chance seems to be a fair above zero. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Do people know they're voting for this" Yes. I think so. You make it sound more complicated than it really is in practice once you strip away the ceremony. I think that most people understand that votes are counted on a state-by-state basis, and that different states get different numbers of 'electoral votes'. People understand this because that's the way TV presents it. Every presidential election year we see the big map of which states have reported in their official counts, and how that adds up on the 'electoral vote'. Anything that's explained in length by the television every four years, I think we can assume is understood by a large percentage of the adult population. That the newspapers, and grade schools also explain it can only help.

Not many of us know the identities of the electors, or the exact time and place that the electors meet to cast their votes, because it doesn't matter at all. They could be robots or trained baboons for all the difference it would make. APL (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The president is sworn in January 20, 2009, I believe, on Inaguration day. However, I'm also wondering why elections always seem to be on Tuesdays? Also, do the final results of the election (ie. who won) get released on Tuesday or Wednesday EST? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this prediction, the results should be known by 11pm Tuesday Eastern time. As for why it is on Tuesday, see U.S. Election Day#History. F (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the election are released precinct by precinct and state by state. If an election is close, the result in a given state will not be known until 95% or more of its precincts have reported their results. This can take quite a while after the polls close, maybe 6 to 12 hours depending on the state. Then, a candidate needs to win the electoral votes of enough states to be assured of a majority in the Electoral College. Again, in a close election, it may be necessary to wait for the results from the west coast, or even, theoretically, Alaska and Hawaii (though in this election, it is a fairly safe bet that Alaska will go for McCain and Hawaii for Obama). If this election is closer than polls predict, and we have to wait for the results from, say, Washington State, then the final results might not be known until 10 or 11 am Wednesday EST. This is assuming that the results are not contested. If the results are contested, as they were in the 2000 presidential election, the result might not be known for weeks. Marco polo (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I took a look at the fascinating video linked by F, which predicts that it will be possible to identify the winner of the election by 8 pm Pacific Time. That would be 11 pm Eastern Time Tuesday. I found the video plausible, though I would not be surprised if it took at least a couple hours longer. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recall that in the 2000 election, the result was "called" (incorrectly as it happens) by the press 70 minutes before the polls closed in Florida. So there is clearly pressure on the news outlets to call the result as early as possible (or even earlier in that case!). However, it's possible that an overly-early call can change the result. Did Gore supporters in Florida stay home in the last hour because they thought it was all over? Did Bush supporters who might otherwise not have voted recognize the vital importance of getting to the polls before they closed - despite what the press said? Because of that danger (and the risk of looking like total idiots when they get it wrong) - it's likely that they'll be cautious in "calling" the election until there is absolutely no possibility of the result changing. But if it's an Obama landslide (I doubt it) - then it may be possible to know the result for 100% certain before the polls have even closed. We'll know tomorrow(ish). SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why a lot of countries have rules about what the media can do while polls are open. I know due to different timezones it's not really practical to have all the polls close at the same time, but those closing earlier could hold off on announcing results until the last polls have closed. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in 2000 wasn't the polls announcing results - it was the results of "exit polls" where some guy stands outside of the polling place and asks people how they voted - so passing laws about what the polls themselves do may not help. SteveBaker (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo W to tha pedia! How does a brother pronounce "clothes" in proper, clean, formal english? Is it pronounced "cloz"? Hustle (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like "cloe" + th (heavy as in "the" or "that") + "z". So, cloz with a "th" in there. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others pronounce it without the "Z." (edit) "TH." Like "close the door." Not to rhyme with "loathes." Consider it a case of "lazymouf." Edison (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Julia's description was right on the money. It would be very difficult to pronounce the word without the "Z" sound. Darkspots (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I always say 'cloze'--and if I absolutely had to pronounce every word correctly, I would actually say "clothing" instead. 'Cloathz' just feels ugly in my mouth. --Masamage ♫ 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, except when it's a verb, in which case I always pronounce it properly. :/ --Masamage ♫ 04:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the oddest form of discrimination I've ever heard of, Masamage. What would that be - partofspeechism, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I as an Englishman have understood the foregoing correctly. If I am clothed, I am wearing clothes - but if I am clozed, I am not open? 92.21.243.29 (talk) 10:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She clothes herself in close, yes. Or in clothing. I will make no attempt to explain myself on this one. X) --Masamage ♫ 00:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounces 'Cloves' but with a 'th' instead of a v. So Clothes infact... That's not particularly useful is it...-- WORMMЯOW  11:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the pronunciation of "clothes" was just a controversial subject! Is there really more than one way to say it? It's pronounced as it's written (with the usual rule for "magic e" in English). --Tango (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary gives only one pronunciation: with the TH. The American Heritage Book of English Usage says

The pronunciation [without TH] has been recorded in various dictionaries since the 1700s including Samuel Johnson’s (1755) and Noah Webster’s (1828). The pronunciation [with TH], while not incorrect, is sometimes considered pedantic. Either pronunciation is acceptable, but [without TH] is much more common.

Other dictionaries:

• American Heritage gives both, prefers without TH
• Merriam-Webster gives both, prefers without TH
• Cambridge learners only with TH
• Webster's New World College Dictionary gives both, prefers with TH
• Encarta gives both, prefers with TH

So take your pick. Partly it's phonotactics. Sounds present in careful enunciation get elided in fluent speech: in relaxed pronunciation of English, complex consonant clusters get simplified. This is not (necessarily) sloppy or lazy: it's the way native speakers talk naturally, and failing to do it is one feature of a "foreign accent".

PS next time, ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language jnestorius^(talk) 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that. I tend to pronounce everything: clo-thes, li-bra-ry, Fe-bru-ary, Aus-tra-lia (cf "Stry-ya") and jewel-ry, so I must sound foreign! Whaddayaknow, Julia Rossi (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course room for free variation. Do you say Aus-tra-lia or Aus-tra-li-a? At any given time, a few words serve as shibboleths; the rest are taken for granted.

Hmmm, given there's: ôˈstrālyə; əˈstrāl-, sometimes the first, more often the second initial sound, with yə (-lia) mostly. But can still have fun with changes. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Phonological history of English consonant clusters is one of those articles that has laypeople like me scratching their heads. But the image from the article shows the geographical range of speakers who preserve a distinction in their speech between "dew" and "do". I grew up in that (very limited) range, and I pronounce the words differently. Freaky. Darkspots (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can see how it's possible to pronounce "dew" and "do" differently, strange though it may seem to me, but the one I've always wondered about is "caught" and "cot." Apparently there are people who can make a distinction, but try as I might, I just can't come up with two different sounds for those. And I agree with Masamage: I pronounce "clothes" differently as a noun (cloz) than as a verb (clothz). Like "produce"--PRO-duce vs. prə-DUCE. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the great CIC/CINC debate! Go to alt.usage.english; they'll fill you in. Anyway I pronounce the two words differently, though it's a bit subtle and you might not really notice in fast speech. The vowel in caught is slightly longer (in time; that is, it's held longer), slightly more rounded (meaning rounded lips), and slightly more "forward", which I don't know how to explain except that it just feels like it's made more forward in the mouth. The vowel in "cot" is the same (or at least almost the same) as the first vowel in "pasta", whereas the vowel in "caught" is definitely not. --Trovatore (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to exaggerate my differing pronunciation of the two words, I'd say I pronounce caught as "cawt", the beginning rhyming with "saw", whereas I pronounce cot as "caht", the beginning rhyming with "blah". --Delirium (talk)

Here in Britain, the vowels in "caught", "cot", "pasta" and "blah" are all quite distinct from the others. Which proves why the IPA is so necessary.

(For the record, that's kɔːt, kɒt, pæstə and blɑː) Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I cringe when I hear people saying pæstə (rather than pɑːstə), bæsic (rather than bay-sic), and cæsl (rather than cɑːsl). I guess it's what one's used to. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen such huge variations in pronunciation in my life. To me, pronouncing clothes like "close" in "close the door" would just make me think you're just generally bad at English and not articulate (still classed as a fluent speaker, but just not that good). Not quite so severe is "dew" and "do", "do" should be obvious, but "dew" can be pronounced like "do", like "new" except with a d instead of an n (possibly bad example, since you could pronounce new like "noo" too) or "mew" with a d instead of an m, or like "Jew". "Caught" rhymes with "sort" and "cot" rhymes with "shot" (short o sound). "Pasta" can rhyme with "raster" or less commonly, sound like the aster part of asteroid (with a p at the front). "Blah" can have a bit more variation. All in my own personal experience of course. Forgive me, but I can't read IPA, except for maybe a couple of symbols. --WikiSlasher (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dew" can indeed be pronounced like "do" (e.g. when Sammy Davis sang The Candy Man, it sounded like "Who can make a sun rise, Sprinkle it with "doo", which always gave me images of spreading animal droppings over something). But likewise, "do" is often pronounced like "dew". I've often heard this on US TV shows, and I associate it with young people (late teens - mid 20s; females more than males). It's not exactly like dew, it's more like "dee-you". For some reason, older people never seem to say it this way. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are these web sites 1 2 3 accurately telling me the future? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give us 48 hours and we'll let you know. --Masamage ♫ 04:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the longest and most tense 48 hours ever..... --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconveniently, the following Halloween mask distribution will reveal what they really think. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more interesting that amazon.com have plenty of used McCain masks (at $10 below the usual price) but no used Obama masks. Make what you like of that! SteveBaker (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that they were telling you the future accurately. Of course, there were several polls with a more developed methodology which were telling everyone the same thing, so it's not really amazing. Warofdreams talk 13:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also interesting why the winner is a more popular mask. Here in NZ, a poll said that Helen Clark (the loser) was considered scarier, whether that was reflected in mask sales I don't know (they were probably too small to be significant) Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I was just reading a Snopes article about the Chatsworth crash which claimed that although a passenger was killed on impact, his cell phone made 35 calls to his relatives. Does anyone have any idea on how this could happen? I cannot think of any mechanism which would allow it to occur... 121.216.77.134 (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the time of death in this instance is recorded incorrectly? Perhaps the guy had relatives on speed-dial and the phone buttons were depressing because of heat (was the wreck on fire?) or perhaps because of pressure (was the phone found on his body?). The truth will be something dull and unspectacular like that. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phone was not found, according to the Snopes article that the OP supplied. Dismas|^(talk) 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the most probable mechanism is that someone else found it and started playing with speed-dial. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My phone frequently unlocks its own keypad and starts phoning and texting people randomly from my pocket. I see no reason I need to be alive for that! --Tango (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is the phone that is alive! Plasticup ^T/C 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've known of phones that would take pictures while in the owner's pocket or purse. Their memory would fill up with shots of their keys, wallet, tissues, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a rather suspect series of events. The fact that they supposedly used the signal from his phone to find his location - yet they never found the phone...that's rather odd. That the calls stopped an hour before they found the body...yet the battery could not have gone dead because they were still (presumably) using it to track the location. I suspect that through the confusion and grief there are aspects of this report that are not correct. Snope's "TRUE" status is based (as far as I can tell) on just two newspaper reports. I doubt this happened as written. SteveBaker (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even the snopes article casts doubt on whether or not the phone was found. If they located the phone near the body this story would not be that unbelievable. ("As far as investigators revealed, they never found Peck's cell phone." could simply mean that they never mentioned the phone. Understandable when they've got bodies to recover.) It's also doesn't mention how, or how successfull they were tracking the cel-phone, or whether they simply found the guy's corpse in the normal course of their search for survivors. APL (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Snopes article does say the phone ultimately led rescuers to the remains which suggests the phone did play a part. This doesn't mean it had to be still working when the body was found. It's possible I guess they had tracked the location of where the signal was coming from but couldn't access it for an hour. Or perhaps they thought the chance of a survivor there so unlikely that they didn't try until they had looked into more urgent places. Also, when the article says they finally found his body, it could mean they had seen his body before then but didn't bother or couldn't get it out until an hour later. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure rescuers often won't tell anyone they've found the body until they've recovered it Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reading about the US being at the edge of bankruptcy due to its huge foreign debt (per GDP now greater than it was in the 1930s), I decided to look that up and of course we have a table: List of countries by external debt. However, to my surprise, the foreign debt per GDP (click (twice) the 'arrow' in the last column) is much bigger for a lot of european countries. Actually, those dominate the top of the list. Might this be a result of delayed payment of bills between companies? For the EU with its open market that would make a lot of sense. But Switzerland (third on the list) is not part of the EU. Might that have something to do with banking?
If those are the cause, were can I find such a list with only government debt, which is what I really wanted to know? Amrad (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that those numbers are from before the economy went haywire (or, at least, as haywire as it is now), things have probably changed significantly since then. We have a similar list, List of countries by public debt, is that what you wanted? --Tango (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also have to look at net debt - debt minus liabilities - to get the complete picture. Note how the article you link to (which shows gross debt) only have positive values (or zero) - for net debt, all values should (ideally) sum to zero, ie a lot of countries (like my country and another country) have huge net surpluses. Jørgen (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, of course, I forgot about that. Silly me. So do you know of a list for that? Tango, thanks for the link. That's what I asked for, but it seems now not what I wanted. :) Without calculating in the liabilities it really doesn't say much. Rather like looking at your spending without looking at your income. Amrad (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that part of the picture is List of countries by current account balance, where you see the magnitude of the U.S. debt put into its true context. Darkspots (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that's a related concept, it's important to notice that the current account is a measure of flow, it's what's changed (usually over the course of a year). Debt and assets are stocks, they are values at a given point in time. See Stock and flow. --Tango (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean that that table only shows the change in the net debt for the year 2007? Which would mean that the total net debt is much greater? For the US, the table shows a 730 billion USD net debt. Which is about 2000 USD per capita. If that's only the change over last year, that would mean tens of thousands of US dollar per US citizen. It can't be that bad, can it? Btw, I'm pleased to see that my country (the Netherlands) is so high on the list, despite the small population. That's 4000 USD per capita in black figures. Not as good as Jørgen's Norway, though, where that figure is over 10,000 USD. Norwegian oil does better than Dutch gas, it seems. :) Or rather, it does the same, but for a smaller population.Amrad (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table shows the Current account balance. Don't read the WP article, read this instead. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up Darkspots' link, here's current account balance controlled for percent of GDP.--droptone (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Tango's point that current-account balance is a measure of a single year's flow, not a measure of indebtedness (it's possible to be completely out of debt despite a large current-account deficit, if you started with lots of assets), it's also a measure of the net balance of the entire U.S. economy (i.e. government plus individuals plus companies), which is not the same thing as measuring the government's finances, which is what the sovereign debt figure measures. Which you want depends on what you're looking at. If, for example, you're interested in the likelihood of a country defaulting on its bonds, debt ratio is more immediately important than current-account balance, since a minimally indebted government is not likely to default even if its citizens run up a huge current-account deficit. --Delirium (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish these figures were routinely divided by the number of people of working age (or some other suitable metric) when presented by government or the press. If we did that then people would feel the problem more intimately. If you look at the $700 billion that the US govermnent just pledged to the bank recovery effort - and divide that by (say) 100 million workers (I'm not sure what the true number is) - then that comes out at $7,000 per worker. Yes - that's $7,000 that YOU personally spent on fixing the banking mess. The average person can't comprehend $700,000,000,000 - but $7,000 out of their own pocket gives you an immediate gut-feel for just how big that expenditure will eventually be. People (like John McCain) get very upset at things like 'earmarks'. This year those will add up to $16.5 billion. Is that a lot of money? Well - it amounts to perhaps $160 (using my hundred-million worker number). Since most of the time, you're actually buying something with that money (roads, bridges, etc) - you might not feel it's such a terrible thing. If a new freeway is build in your home town - it might very easily be worth that much to you over the years to come. Sarah Palin's famous "bridge to nowhere" has gotten a lot of press - it was supposed to cost $398 million. That's $3.98 out of my pocket...it was worth that for the laughs we got as a result of it! It's impossible for "Joe Public" to envisage these numbers. But routinely dividing them down like this really helps to put them in focus. SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tax revenue doesn't come from everyone equally, though, so it doesn't work like that. I don't know what the distributions are exactly, but a large number of the poorest people pay essentially nothing in tax so the bail out didn't cost them a penny (for the UK, it works out at something like the bottom 40%, but that's including money spent on the NHS, so it's probably a little less in the US), most of it was paid for by the high earners that pay most of the tax. --Tango (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily relevant, though. After all, if the tax money wasn't being spent saving banks, it could be spent on something of benefit to the poor. Btw, essentially everyone in the UK pays tax (VAT if nothing else). Do you mean that the poorest 40% get more from the government than they pay? Algebraist 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether public spending is being cut or taxes are being increased in order to pay for the bail out (actually, the bail out is a bad example because it will probably result in a profit for the treasury over the long term so it isn't costing anyone anything). Yes, from benefits, tax credits, etc. There's a bar chart on the Office of National Statistics site somewhere, I'll find it. --Tango (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the page I remember, but this pdf has the same chart on page 2 (and it's actually 60%, not 40%, I remembered it incorrectly). That includes more than just cash benefits, I believe, so it's not entirely relevant to what we're talking about. It's still an interesting statistic. --Tango (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table on page three is more useful, it separates out cash and in-kind benefits. If you only include cash benefits, it's back to 40% (well, the bottom two quintiles, I don't know where the exact cutoff is). --Tango (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that not everyone pays equally - but reducing the number to some kind of average amount that is representative of what most people are paying (or "owing" or "responsible for" or whatever) is the goal here. Get the number down to a 'human scale' where we can understand the relative size of it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it isn't what "most" people are paying. It's the average of what everyone is paying, but that average is heavily skewed by a small number of people with high incomes. Most people pay little or nothing, a few people pay a lot. --Tango (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's still useful though. $700bn means very little but saying the "average" taxpayer pays $7000 has more meaning. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - exactly. I'm not asking for any kind of exact number - just some kind of rough-and-ready divisor that turns a crazy number into something that's meaningful. So if the cost falls heavily in the laps of the rich - then let's divide by 200,000,000 or 300,000,000 or whatever it takes to come up with something approximately representative. SteveBaker (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then we can also compare countries more easily. The Netherlands reserved 20 billion euro (of which over half is spent now). That's about 25 billion USD (when did that happen? The euro used to be 1.6 USD or something. Anyway....). You divided by 1/3 of the US population, so I'll do the same. That's 25 billion / 5 million = 5000 USD. Not as much as in the US, but close.

We could make a list. Everyone make this calculation for your country please. :) Aren't all EU countries supposed to do the same as the Netherlands are doing? Or wasn't that proposal accepted? Amrad (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tango, taxes don't come mostly from the happy few. Tey may be filthy rich, but there's too few of them. That's why the Dutch Socialist Party dropped the idea to raise te taxes for them. Most money comes from the upper middle class. Not as much money, but still a lot, and more importantly, they consitute about a quarter of the population (that's a wild guess). Amrad (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your definitions and where you draw the line. If we look at the table in the pdf I linked to above and, for simplicities sake, assume there are 5 households in the UK (it makes no difference to the percentages), the total amount of tax paid, minus cash benefits, is £38,300, the total tax paid (minus cash benefits) by the richest household is £24,290, that's 63% of UK tax revenue coming from the richest 20% of households. If you include the top 40% of households you get £36,340, or 95% of tax revenue. So, taxes do indeed come mostly from the happy few! That's before we even consider "in-kind benefits" (health and education, mainly, I think), which disproportionately go to the poor (I guess the rich use private hospitals and schools more), then it becomes even more extreme (I'm not quite sure how they define in-kind benefits, though, so I'm not sure how to interpret those numbers accurately, hence not including them here). --Tango (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure public benefits benefit the poor more. How much benefit does somebody without a car get out of public funding of the highways and streets? How much benefit does a poor person get from public funding of the management and regulation of the airline system? How many poor people benefit from public funding of the arts, theatres, etc.? Does a poor or rich person benefit more from the publicly funded legal/police system and its effect on reducing the amount of theft, burglaries, kidnappings, etc.? How about the publicly funded legal system's prosecution of things like theft of intellectual property, or patent violations, or restraint of trade? Or the publicly funded probate court system which ensures that inheritances end up in the right hands? "If you got nothing, you got nothing to lose". Gzuckier (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of poor people still have cars (and if you don't have a car you don't pay road tax or fuel duty). Does much, if any, public money go on airlines? The arts do receive some public money, but not a great deal. The poor, on average, live in higher crime areas which require a greater proportion of police funding, they are also more likely to use public defence lawyers. The cases you're talking about about civil cases which aren't publicly prosecuted, the loser pays the court costs (I don't know if that covers all the costs, but it certainly covers a good portion). I'm not sure how probate courts are funded, but I think there are fees taken from the estate to cover at least some of it. You then have health and education which are used significantly more by the poor than the rich. Pretty much the only large sector of public money that isn't weighted towards the poor is defence, and that's pretty evenly split (I guess the rich have more to lose in a war, so you could say it slightly favours them, but not much). --Tango (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if you are poor you are still a lot less likely to use anywhere near the amount of roads as a person who's better off outside of work purposes but still has to pay the same amount of road taxes. They will of course also pay less fuel duty, although it can get complicated since a poor person may have a cheaper, fuel-guzzling old car. Whether fuel duty + road tax is enough to account for all costs that come with constructing roads (and all the other costs that come with cars, e.g. in air pollution) is difficult to say since it's extremely complicated to count, but from what I've seen and read, it doesn't. (Something those opposed to increase funding for public transport like to ignore, the tax payer is actually subsiding roads quite a bit). And this is from NZ where we have the kind of fuel duties common in most of the developed world outside the US. If you're in the US, I don't see any way in hell that roads+cars aren't partially subsidised by the tax payer (i.e. outside of licensing and fuel duty) Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Droptone, thanks for the link. That's what I was looking for. The US is now somewhere below the middle (115 out of 175), which doesn't look so bad. Until you notice it's surrounded by third world coutries. Plus some other surprises. Australia and New Zealand for example. And some south and east European countries. And Iceland, way down at 159. Which is a surprise if you think they've got almost free energy. But Iceland#Economy_and_infrastructure says they only fairly recently industrialised. And they probably borrowed money for that, which they haven't paid off yet. These are 2005 figures. I wonder where they are now, after Icesave. I also wonder if their neoliberal privatisation policies are to blame for that. I'm surprised I haven't heard any socialists (who are having a ball right now) point that out. Amrad (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have checkily pointed out Icelands current problems in relation to their neoliberal policies a few times in a variety of places (for example, I came across and old blog lauding Iceland's flat tax once and congratulated them on their smart move, as shown by their current situation). I don't of course think so much their flat tax policy. More their idea that just borrowing more and more money was a good way to grow their economy. Of course 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis covers this resonably okay. And sadly I'm not surprised by NZ (we have improved since ~1999 at least I think). Trouble is, few people seem to care and when something is done about it, the government is accused of over-taxing people since there's a hefty 'surplus'. Further, the way things are headed in this election is looks likely going to get worse :-( Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of my friends shot a 57 once while playing golf - and he was just 10 when he did it! I think the Perfect round article should be updated to reflect this. I don't care whether it was in a tournament or not - he got a really great score at a really young age! Has anyone else ever gotten a score this low in non-tournament play? 121.219.2.201 (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a notability about non-tournament play but unless it's in Ripley's Believe It or Not! or Guinness Book of Records kind of bag, it might be hard to tell. Still, you could try this google search[7]. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the article shouldn't be updated to reflect the score. There would need to be evidence of this from a reliable source, and unfortunately it is highly unlikely that non-touranment records will have evidence that is reliable enough to be considered a record by any sources. A great achievement for your friend but not something that could be added to a wikipedia article. The best bet for your friend would be to contact Ripleys/Guiness Book of records and see whether they could consider the record - to be honest I doubt they would accept it without compelling evidence that it occured. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he shot a 57 over 9 holes, or on a par-3 course, neither of which would be terribly interesting... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that people claim these sorts of things all the time - once in a while, they are true - most of the time, they are not. So both Wikipedia and Guinness require strict standards of evidence before they'll print a claim like that...and rightly so. Hence, unless there is documented proof that it happened (which seems pretty unlikely - I mean, what 'official' is going to be following random 10 year-olds around to see if they do something amazing?) - you don't get to report it here - and the Guinness guys certainly won't accept it. I strongly suggest you ask yourself whether even you have evidence that it really happened. It's an easy claim for someone to make - and virtually impossible to either prove or disprove. SteveBaker (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

57 is nothing. Kim Jong Il shot 38 under par in his first game ever with several holes in one. [8] —D. Monack ^talk 08:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could that make the GBoWR for "biggest whopper ever told?" --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few friends of mine were discussing this and although we are aware there is no obligation to ever tell anyone you suffer from these diseases, being a doctor is kind of a big deal. We came to the conclusion that you could based on the logic that random patients could be HIV+ and you could be in danger of infeciton from treating them, so, as a doctor, if you take good care and attention there is never a risk of infection. If the scenario were the other way around, and you were HIV+ and treating a patient, the same rule applies; you are careful, and there is no risk of transmittition.

But by the same token one doctor sees many patients, surely the risk of transmition is greater if everyday you work with blood, syringes and open wounds for a living?

We came up with many arguments from both camps, but couldn't find an answer on the intertubes.

Thanks a lot Fenton Bailey (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, as of 1991 the doctors have to inform their patients that they are HIV positive before performing "exposure prone procedures" such as surgery, dressing wounds, drawing blood, etc. source Plasticup ^T/C 15:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found this from following up the story of Kimberly, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenton Bailey (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Imperial College London medical course, they test you for diseases and if you have HIV/AIDS then you can still proceed to all the normal courses etc but you are not allowed to perform the surgery part of the course/ 81.151.242.29 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAJITH 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Which are the funding agencies to give grant or financial assistancet to a Indian NGO to make educational videos ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAJITHANCHAL (talk • contribs)

We've already answered this - see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#funding_agencies_to_give_grant_to_a_indian_ngo_to_awarness_programme__on_environment_protection_project. Exxolon (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry about this, but I'll be as brief as I can. Could someone explain how to revert a page to a previous version (stop vandals from getting the upper hand). Thanks Kiddish.K (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask questions like this at the Help desk, which is for questions about editing. Franamax (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've moved it there for you. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_do_I_edit. Franamax (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Franamax. Kiddish.K (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is/are the nutritional ingredient(s) in lemon?----- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.104.156 (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most significant nutritional components of a lemon are carbohydrates (in the form of sugars) and Vitamin C. There are plenty of other things in smaller amounts - a Google search for "lemon nutrition" turns up a lot of useful pages. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British Admiralty used lemon juice to combat scurvy, then lime juice (hence the term limey), then back to lemon juice as lime was deficiant in vitamin C. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there's also a lot of fancy biologicals in the peel, but that's not usually consumed. Gzuckier (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some processed peels exist in glacé/semi-cooked form for mixed dried fruit in recipes, as zest or shaved and dried for tea-making. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from Canada, we have free basic health care, in my province at least. This means that should I suffer a severe anaphylactic shock or a gunshot wound to the lungs and manage to bring myself into a public hospital emergency room, I would be treated and given a room regardless of my financial situation.

Do movies such as Sicko and John Q truly portray the health care system in the United States? If I was penniless and lacked health insurance and walked into a public hospital with a severe gunshot wound, would I be treated? Acceptable (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that US hospitals do provide emergency care to uninsured people given the situations you just described. TastyCakes (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not American and I'm not really sure, but my understanding is that they will treat anyone with an immeadiately life threatening condition regardless of insurance and worry about the money later. --Tango (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's so, would they write the money off if the patients had no insurance, or would they go after them for every cent they had? Titch Tucker (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more knowledgable then me can tell you more, but from my experience any hospital that gets money from a government (state or local) is required to treat any life threatening condition that you come in with. As for cost, it depends on a lot of factors. They will try to get the money from you if possible, I've been to hospitals that offered discounts if you didn't have insurance. They will also try to work with you on setting up a payment plan, and in most US states they are not allowed to charge interest on an account that you are trying to pay off (though they may try very hard not to tell you this). Finally, if you have a low enough income you may qualify for Medicare/Medicade which is provided by the government, and in that case the hospital will work with you to get the government to pay for your care. Tobyc75 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

both Gzuckier (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about ambulance service? If I got into a severe car accident without money or insurance, would the paramedics question my financial well-being? In other words, will an ambulance ever refuse to pick me up should I lack the money required to pay afterwards? Acceptable (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same applies - they'll treat any life threatening condition. --Tango (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly wouldn't stand there prodding you and asking if you have insurance if you're laying on the side of the road in cardiac arrest. You'll get held up after youre at the hospital if you're clearly stable and able to talk money. 71.176.167.123 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god for the NHS - it ain't perfect, but it's free at the point of use. While it's care of chronic conditions and non-urgent problems can be variable for acute life threatening events money is (almost) never an object. Exxolon (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, U.S. hospitals will generally treat any emergency condition regardless of the financial situation of the patient. Some hospitals have agreed to treat indigent cases in exchange for government money. Where being uninsured hurts you is in the area of preventative care. A lot of people in U.S. emergency rooms are uninsured people who are in the emergency room because that's the only way they can get care outside of a free clinic. It's worth noting that a similar situation exists in Canada due to a physicians' shortage -- many Canadians can't get a family doctor and wind up in the emergency room for something that should have been taken care of on an outpatient basis. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for the U.S. Patients' Bill of Rights. --01:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you are involved in a car accident or something in China, the hospital will make you pay before they treat you. If you don't pay they will just let you die. F (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense in a socialist country. One would expect the exact opposite (as in Cuba). Do you have a source for that? (Preferably not a US source. :) )

turns out he's right. [9] surprised me too. Gzuckier (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They practice socialism with Chinese characteristics in China now, in other words, capitalism with no regard for ethics. Pretty sad. F (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the US. What if your condition isn't immediately life-threatening? Where is the line drawn? Whether you are capable of speech? And what about situations that can be life-threatening in the long run? Or what about an wound that will heal by itself, but very slowly and/or with 'debilitating' (searching for the right word) effects? Between a cold and a life-threatening situation there's a whole range of possible ailments. Amrad (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between a rich socialist country and a poor one. And there are a lot of things in China that don't "make sense" on an ideological basis. TastyCakes (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth considering that as with many developing countries, but especially in the case of China, there is a lot of stuff that shouldn't happen but does because of corruption, government (including civil service and law enforcement) incompetence and other similar factors Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably not a US source. I don't understand. Darkspots (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page (http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/treatment-without-insurance) is a good start, and then here (http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm). The statement within there on what constitutes an emergency is

"A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in -- placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part, or

"With respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions -- that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or that the transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or her unborn child." 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would get almost certainly get treated but you would get a bill running in the tens of thousands of dollars if not more. Even very small procedures that require any sort of time in the hospital cost thousands without insurance, much less something big. If you go to an emergency room, or call an ambulance, you will get taken in and treated—and billed.

Keep in mind Sicko is not really about people without insurance. It's about people with insurance and how they get bilked by the companies as well. I am sure most Americans have some sort of insurance horror story—I have around three of people I know directly and I don't consider myself atypical. In that respect Sicko is pretty accurate—the real evidence for how screwed up the US system is at the moment comes not from the fact that those without insurance are put into impossible binds (which finger they can afford to save) but from the fact that even if you have insurance you have no guarantee of that insurance actually being useful for anything more than occasional checkups and the common cold. Anything serious and they start looking immediately for ways to deny you coverage. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or less cynically...the insurance industry is only concerned with paying for valid claims, because paying for invalid claims will increase the cost of insurance for everybody. Additionally even in a publically provide systems such as the NHS you have limits and stops on what is and isn't provided, you have patients with horror stories of drugs they need that aren't availale on the nhs. NICE (The national institute of clinical excellence) has to try balanace finite resources across hugely varied illness, with hugely varied degress of impact on life and lifestyle. They use QUALYS (quality of life years) among other things to help choose what services to provide on the nhs. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between "we only have so much money - where can we spend it best?" and "if we don't pay this claim our shareholders will make more profit". Also there is a big difference between a doctor, or even a health administrator, deciding where to spend the money and a lawyer saying that because of some small print in your insurance contract you won't get paid. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claims system of an insurance industry does not refuse payment of claims on the basis of making more profit, it refuses claims on the basis of not meeting the criteria defined for a valid claim. That is not that different from refusing access to specific treatment on the basis of NICE's assessmetn of QUALYs. On the nhs you aren't aware of the drug you couldn't get/treatment they don't provide because they provide the services they are allowed to on a 'free at entry', so you never get cover that isn't costed-in, whereas a claim that is invalid is where you are trying to get treatment for a ailment you are not covered for. The difference is minimal and it certainly has zero to do with being a profit making industry. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the reasons that insurance companies have tried to refuse claims include mistakes filling out your application (even when that mistake would have made no difference to your coverage).DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i know a person who had a compound fracture of her arm while rafting down some river in the rockies, back BC (Before Celllphones); some of the party stayed with her on the bank, while the rest continued downriver to civilization to get help. They airlifted her to the hospital and treated her, and in due time she received a walloping bill, since the insurer's defnition of emergency wouldn't include anything where there was more than 24 hours delay between the injury and the treatment, and thus she would have had to pre-certify the treatment and since she didn't, she was up the creek, so to speak. Gzuckier (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the people who stayed to look after her used a splint or something? Doesn't that count as "treatment"? SteveBaker (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal anecdote from the US: My uninsured friend's appendix exploded. Or something. He got the emergency care he needed, including an ambulance, surgery, and a hospital stay. Then since he didn't have insurance, he was billed for the cost of the care. He had to declare bankruptcy, because he had no way of getting as much money as the treatment cost. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't have insurance so he had to pay, that's how it's supposed to work... Sure, I'm glad I live in the UK and have the NHS, but if you live in the US you need to have medical insurance, your friend must of known that. There's a big difference between being uninsured and being insured but they refuse to pay up on ridiculous grounds. --Tango (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much would full insurance cover cost? Can the general working class afford this, or is it only the unemployed who have no insurance? Titch Tucker (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a decent full-time job (and are an employee rather than a contractor), you can generally get group insurance through your employer, which is generally much more affordable than buying insurance as an individual (even before the employer kicks in a dime for it). If you're a temp or part-time hourly laborer that may not be an option. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're poor enough you get Medicaid. I'm not sure if there's a gap between qualifying for Medicaid and being able to afford basic insurance, if there is then that would be a legitimate cause for complaint against the system. --Tango (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article you linked, being very poor does not necessarily qualify you for Medicaid. Nor, by the way, does health insurance necessarily cover all of your bills (e.g. see co-pay). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It varies from place to place, but if I wanted full-coverage insurance for myself (a healthy 20-something adult), I'd be paying on the order of $400 per month. Similar insurance for a family with two kids would run about $1000-$1200 per month. --Carnildo (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as free health care. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the NHS is usually described as "free at the point of use". Somebody has to pay at some point (ie. taxpayers). Of course, if you don't pay tax, it's free for you. --Tango (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the idea that you buy insurance yourself is that healthy people get great rates - but sick people are better off without insurance because the treatment is cheaper than the insurance. So only by bundling a lot of people together can you make it affordable for the people who actually need it. The British NHS gets a lot of flak - but that's from British people who've never had to live with the alternative - and Americans who don't understand it. The key thing that Americans don't understand is that you can still buy your own health insurance - and many companies in the UK offer private health plans...so if you are in a good job - you get the same level of service or better than in the US. However, the private plans in the UK are much cheaper than in the US and they do a better job because they are competing against a service that's literally free. So they can't go around pulling these ridiculous stunts of not covering people for crazy small-print reasons or all of their customers will go back to using the NHS. For people who can't afford private health plans - you've always got coverage that's going to save you in the event of dire emergencies without bankrupting you. SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that even though the British may complain about their NHS, just as people complain about the public system here in NZ, there are few who would advocate the American system in it's current form. While people may argue over how much (and what kind of) private involvement there should be, and how far the public system should go, etc; definitely in NZ and I think in the UK, few disagree that there should be universal health care. Those who want greater private involvement are more likely to look at Singapore (or perhaps Canada) and other countries I'm probably not aware of as a model I think Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read abit more about this and one more thing I should mention is that other then the risk of bankruptcy, while you may be treated for the emergency condition, any further treatment and rehabilation may not come unless you can pay for it. Ironically of course if you don't get the after-care you need, you may not be able to go back to work and so may not be able to pay and will have to file for bankruptcy Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question but a comment. There is an image of an 1876 lithograph in today's opening screen with an erroneous annotation that it contains the then 48 states. The US did not have 48 states in 1876. I didn't look up the dates, but AZ and NM were added in 1912, and if I remember my US history correctly, the Dakotas were admitted in the late 1880s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.88.213 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The annotation states clearly that the seals of the 48 states and territories are depicted. Algebraist 00:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it included the 48 states except Hawaii and Alaska (or their territorial predecessors), but I note it gets a total of 48 by having a single "Dacota Ter.(not North and South Dakota), and makes up for the decrease by including the District of Columbia. DC was not a state and not a territory, so the previous statement and the text on the main page are incorrect. Edison (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial evolution of the United States may be helpful. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. It now says "the then-47 states and territories as well as the District of Columbia" Edison (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to shine shoes easily? Can shoes be made reflective with little effort? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience it's not a process that you should try and shortcut. Here's what I do: buy two shoe cleaning brushes, one for adding the polish and one for shining, and some proper shoe polish. Write P and S on the backs of the brushes so they don't get mixed up. Use the P one to apply the polish evenly to the surface of the shoe (I assume we're talking leather here). Then briskly brush the shoe all over with the S brush until you get a really nice shine. There is no better way of getting your shoes to look shiny, and it's good for the leather too. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe polish and a soft brush (there will be instructions on the polish). They should be available in any shoe shop and probably lots of less specialist shops as well. How easy it is will depend on what the shoes are made of - make sure you get the right polish. --Tango (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If hollywood movies are anything to go buy...a bit of spit and an old rag is all you need...Patent leather is the key to sucess - shiny goodness all the way to the bank. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to recommend the WikiHow articles http://www.wikihow.com/Shine-Shoes and http://www.wikihow.com/Give-Your-Boots-That-Military-Mirror-Shine .--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military tricks involve using a lighter to heat the leather (without burning), applying polish, then buffing. --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Parade Gloss polish listed on google. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always understood that this excessive shining is called 'bulling' your shoes or boots, perhaps derived from the bulls*** found in military serice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.187.55 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bulling" in the army involves putting the polish onto the leather with firm pressure of the back of a spoon to smooth out the texture of the leather, then rubbing in the polish with a cloth and a bit of spit; hence 'Spit and Polish'. Good way to spend the evenings when you could not afford even the NAFFI food!--212.139.78.231 (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing shines shoes with as little effort as paying a shoeshiner. Plasticup ^T/C 22:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They sell quick-drying, no-buffing shoe shine, you know -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any person or organisation that judges people by the refractive index of their footware really needs to find a better criteria. SteveBaker (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<nails on chalkboard> Or a better business models? Or a better dictionaries? --Trovatore (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why bring Cinderella into this? —Tamfang (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am looking for some books that are no longer being published. So far I found this website (booksandcollectibles.com.au) the best way to find the books I was looking for. The only problem is that it is an Australian website, concentrating on Australian used book shops. Does anyone know of any similar UK based websites? Thanks, --217.227.103.181 (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one and this one are both fab. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany there is ZVAB and they also have a lot of foreign booksellers. pretty easy to find--Radh (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I buy bondage rope? I have three nylon bondage ropes from 5 to 7 m, but I would like to have a longer rope too (about 10 m). Sex shops here in Finland tend to focus more on handcuffs and gags than rope. Hardware stores only sell hemp rope, which chafes the skin, and nylon rope that is too thin and gets stuck in folds and knots too easily. JIP | Talk 00:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears that ebay has some silk rope and Google seems to have a few as well. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally try some online retailers. European ones are probably willing to ship anywhere in Europe. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improvise, any sewing/upholstery section of a department store, interior design store or shop that sells dressmaking/sewing trimming items would have twisted "silk" cords by the metre in a range of colours I believe. (Tassels are separate.) ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what is bondage rope when it's not being sold as bondage rope? Is it some kind of marine cord or textile trim? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just regular nylon rope, I think. But it needs to be soft. Have a look at the first picture in Hogtie bondage (note: link extremely NSFW). That is the stuff you want and it is not true to say that hardware stores do not sell it. They do, I know because I have bought it from hardware stores myself (original research, sue me). And you can get it from online retailers like this one (although that particular website doesn't ship outside the UK). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with hemp rope? Edison (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the OP said, it's scratchy and itchy against the skin. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is sadism and masochism supposed to be completely free of discomfort? Seems ironic. Edison (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, but it's supposed to be comfortable for all people infolved. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 07:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not supposed to be comfortable exactly; that's the whole point! But the type of discomfort that scratchy rope brings is not one that most S&M practitioners would seek to bring about. You could shut your hand in a car door as well, it would hurt a whole lot for sure, but a masochist probably wouldn't enjoy it very much. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the car was a sadist. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha!(the right cars) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct way to run? I recently read online that when running, your foot should roll heel to toe, but I've always run on my toes (sort of like kicking off with every step). Does proper form depend on whether one is running for distance or time? Please respond soon. Thanks in advance, --AtTheAbyss (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to use the heel-ball-toe method in any type of running since the heel can absorb more impact since it has Calcaneus to support it. Our toes are not really suited for impact. Even in kicking, you should use the heel or the ball of the feet, not the toes.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely on what style of running you are doing. Sprinters, for example, run exclusively on the balls of their feet; while marathoners tend to roll their feet as you describe. It really comes down to what race you are running, be it a sprint, middle distance, or long distance run. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I injured my knee running on my high school cross-country team, my physical therapist noticed that I run on my toes and believed that could have caused it. The heel is made to take the impact.-- Mad031683 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree with Jayron, for sprints you should stay on your toes, since impact is less of a factor. -- Mad031683 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Pirie had a lot to say about natural running being more forefoot/midfoot striking. [10] 205.206.170.1 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or the Pose method of running or Chi running or any of those trendy things. The new barefoot footwear wave also tends to be associated with forefoot walking/running rather than heelstriking, and has studies to support it. 205.206.170.1 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...alot of opinions. What do you guys think would work best for the US Marine Corps?--AtTheAbyss (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it depends on the style of running. Both sprint-style and marathon-style running have a place in the military. Of course, the USMC may elect to impose its style on you, rendering all this moot. If there's not a formal "how to run in the USMC" style, though, I would expect they don't much care at all how you run provided you can meet the physical requirements. — Lomn 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the tradition in the Offertory Procession as far as whether the man or the woman (assuming that there's one of each) should carry the bread (wafers)? Indications of any other Offertory Procession traditions, many of which are dying out, would be appreciated. 80.189.126.235 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confusing the "offertory procession" with the procession of the communion elements. Offertory refers to the giving of alms, today more commonly known as the "collection". The procession is usually symbolic of the giving of the alms (money) to God. The collection is taken and the monies moved towards the back of the church, and then symbollically brought forward to represent the congregation "offering" the money to God.

The communion elements are also frequently processed in a similar way, and often immediately after the offertory, or even at the same time (which may explain the understandable confusion). In general there is certainly nothing to say that this should be done by "one man and one woman", let alone who should do which part. Many churches use men only for this, and many use people without considering their gender. Of course your church may have a tradition of doing it this way: I would recommend asking your minister why it is done like this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identify the denomination, and better guidance can be provided, unless you want to know the historic practice in the Roman Catholic church and the liturgical churches whose rituals sprung from that one during the Reformation. Edison (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The offertory procession and communion procession are often combined in the Roman Catholic tradition. In the Catholic tradition I grew up with, there was no gender difference made between men and women. It was often a man and a woman, but there wasn't a particular 'division of labour' for them. I don't know of any official policy. This [11] article says nothing about gender practices, although it seems that they were traditionally performed by deacons, who until recently (post Vatican II?) would have all been men. Steewi (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an English learner. I noticed that the Wikibook slogan is claimed as wrong in grammar. Really? 百家姓之四 討論 (Discussion) 12:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the slogan? Who says it is wrong? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan of the Wikibook project is "Think free. Learn free.". I'll leave it to someone more qualified to say if that contains an error. APL (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, strictly speaking, it should be 'freely', as it would be an adverb modifying the verb 'think', but 'Learn freely' sounds strange, and the original people who thought of it probably meant 'learn for free', for which 'learn free' would be OK. But, then, 'Think freely' would not have the same word, so I guess they just went with the original idea, however wrong it may be.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the slogan is colloquial rather than grammatically incorrect. Purists might argue that it would be more 'correct' to say "Think freely, Learn for free". But most English speakers understand what the phrase means and this is surely the point, together with it's catchyness, which might be lost with a 'correct' rendering. Richard Avery (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "think adj." and "verb free" are both rather common idiomatic patterns in English (as in e.g. "think big" or "run free"). The implied meaning of "think free" is somewhat different depending on which pattern you interpret it as following, but the difference is quite subtle, and such double meanings are in any case common in slogans. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple famously exhorted us to Think Different. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which was, of course, a dig on IBM, whose motto has always been simply "Think". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could also imply "free thinking" and "free learning" (along the lines of think big = big thinking; as well as "be" free applications). See imperative mood and command language. Exhortations work like this too, urging the reader/hearer to do something related to "higher" or common goals. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Learn for free" is wrong. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? It strikes me as fully grammatical and idiomatic, and usable in almost any register except perhaps the very highest ones. --Trovatore (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the slogan is intended to be ambiguous - "Free as in free beer" versus "Free as in freedom" - to use a phrase that the OpenSource software world is fond of. Free (as in zero cost) requires something like "Learn for free", free (as in freedom) requires "Learn freely". So if you fix the grammar - you spoil the intentional double-meaning. "Free learning. Free thinking" might have been a better way to phrase it and keep the double meaning...but they didn't ask me! SteveBaker (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in Italy there was a book in the stores called Dio ci ha creato gratis about children's pronouncements about God. When I saw the title I thought it was sort of a pun, that the child in question had heard Dio ci ha creati liberi ("God created us free") and had reconstructed it as the above phrase (which means "God created us for free"). But a native speaker told me that no such interference would be heard between libero and gratis. It does sort of raise the question, supposing God had wanted money in exchange for creating us, where would we have gotten it? --Trovatore (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find photos of white, Asian, Indian, Persian, Arab girls feet with sandals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.225 (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Commons:Category:Sandals. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you have piqued my curiosity. What is this about? Plasticup ^T/C 01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foot fetishism? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What plant(s) can I purchase that needs minimal care and can survive in a cubicle with only flouresecent lighting? It seems whenever I purchase one, it dies in a matter of weeks. --Emyn ned (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cacti maybe? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that. Cacti live for ages and you don't need to do anything for them. I used to have in my office (in the house - I was working from home) what I thought in Japanese was a 'potosu', but as it turned out, it was something else. Anyway, it was a tree stump with leaves on it. I didn't have to do anything for that (except add water occasionally) and it lived for 3 years until I got divorced and moved out. It might still be alive.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought desert plants need lots of natural light, something I do not have in my cube... --Emyn ned (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Cacti will survive but not thrive. You might like to try the following:- African Violets. This plant will bloom with small dark purple or lavender flowers over dark green leaves. Peace Lily. Leafy foliage and pale white flowers make the Peace Lily an excellent office plant. Provide plenty of water to promote blooms. Caladium. This variety is a native of the tropics, and also called "elephant ears." Large, rounded leaves provide a colourful show in shades from white to dark pink and red. Most leaves have light centres and darker, thickly veined edges.Ivy. Hedera helix is a popular variety suited to office conditions. The dark and sometimes variegated leaves grow on thin vines. Ivy can tolerate dark corners as well as brighter areas. Richard Avery (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got one of these in my office. It's very attractive. I do have natural light, admittedly, but the article says they can survive indoors albeit with bright light. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found Epipremnum aureum (Pothos / Silver Vine / Money Plant / Devil's Ivy / etc.) to be pretty much impossible to kill, as long as you remember to water it at least every few months or so. As the article says, "this is a robust plant that can stand a very high degree of abuse." It's also dead easy to propagate, since the vines naturally take root in any soil they come in contact with. If you know someone who has one, just ask for a piece and plant it in a pot. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two random catci I picked up at the local SuperMegaDynoHardwareHomeAndGardenCenterLumberYard Store for something like $2.00 each. I water them randomly; sometimes once a month, sometimes once every 6 months. I have had them 3-4 years, and they are still quite alive... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's maybe "lucky bamboo" from florists that undemandingly just sits in water; and the historic Aspidistra – ("cast-iron plant") is a popular foliage houseplant, grown for its ability to survive neglect and very shady indoor conditions. Another neglect candidate is the spider plant. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider plants are indeed nice, though in my experience not quite as tolerant of shade and neglect as the silver vine. Very easy to propagate, though — and cats love them, particularly the variegated kind. :-) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kept my Yucca plant (probably a Yucca glauca) in the office for a long time. It needed little watering, a shady spot, and warm conditions. It eventually grew to over 8 feet in height. Sadly, I had to cut it down when I recently changed jobs. Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had some success with having several similar plants and rotating them through the office for a week or two each. So buy (say) three similar plants - leave two of them outdoors to get the sun and the rain - keep one in the office. As soon as it starts to look like it's suffering, take it home and bring in one of the others. Each plant gets to spend a week or two in the office and have several weeks outdoors to recover. SteveBaker (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copy below a reference I stumbled upon in a Wiki article. So does that mean he is currently a lawyer - or not? Reference follows - He also, in 1993, joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a twelve-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002 92.8.197.197 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He began public life in 1996, when he won the election for the State Senate seat. The "of counsel" business is, in my experience, something some law firms do when one of their members becomes a judge, something like that—it looks like that firm decided it covered a legislative career. I'm not sure if, as a matter of course, the firm would have compensated Obama or not during those years, but he certainly was not actively practicing law for them after the election in 1996. In 2002 he got reelected to the State Senate, so one imagines he let his law license lapse when he realized he wasn't going back to the firm anytime soon. Then, obviously, after he won the U.S. Senate race he ended his ties with the law firm. I don't know any of the back story, it very well may have been covered in the media, but his biography makes perfect sense in and of itself. Making law isn't practicing law, and many legislators have no legal background. Darkspots (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to your question is that no, he is not currently a lawyer in the sense of being licensed to practice. And just in case there was any hidden agenda to the question all it means is that he stopped practicing. A friend of mine recently allowed his law license to become inactive because he moved from practicing law to lecturing in law. That's all it means. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I answered the question in the header, not the question in the body.... Darkspots (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rest easy friend Clayworth - I have no hidden agenda. Perhaps my question was inspired by the wording of the reference viz. "became inactive". It aroused curiosity, nothing more. I too am a qualified professional who has the choice now that I am retired, to cease paying annual subscriptions to my professional body. But I choose to continue to pay, and also to enjoy the resultant benefits of membership, despite there being no chance of me practising again any time soon. Some people here on Wiki appear to be terribly paranoid about the unspoken agenda in OP questions - it's awfully off-putting you know. 92.8.197.197 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that a lot of lawyers lack the sense of vocation that, just as an example, the vast majority of doctors seem to have. Darkspots (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether he serves one or two terms as President, he will be a young man to be retired to a life of quiet contemplation, and will have 2 daughters to put through college and to pay for weddings for, so he might desire professional work after the presidency. Clinton and Bush, Sr. has made motivational speeches for handsome fees, and ex-Presidents like Nixon have written books. Have any ex-presidents who were once lawyers returned to the practice of law? Ex-governors and ex-senators are often hired by big law firms as "rain-makers," to bring in big accounts, where they are not there to be legal technicians skilled in the latest revisions of the tax code. So the question is, what have been the principal employments of ex-presidents? Edison (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents get a pretty hefty pension, $150,000 a year plus expenses according to this. Enough to pay a couple college tuitions. Darkspots (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One might think so, but one might be surprised. Edison (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that someone in charge of the biggest economy in the world would be good enough with money to have saved up a bit while they were earning the full presidential salary (while being provided with accommodation and probably whatever else they need). --Tango (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, Ex-Vice-President Nixon did return to law, though he found it terribly boring in comparison to politics (and thus wormed his way back into the latter). Ex-President Taft returned to law, in a sense, as a judge on the Supreme Court. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama said that an income up to $250,000 still leaves one in the middle class. Edison (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but pretty much everyone is middle class in the US. They use a very strange definition... --Tango (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone recommend a good shaver that also has the ability to shave body hair? Preferably a shaver that's main funtion is still to shave the face! :) --217.227.85.111 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google "precision shaver" presents a brand that allows you to do all kinds of off-road styles and things, apparently. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the results of the 2008 Presidential election, I noticed that all NYC boroughs heavily favored Obama (no surprise), but Staten Island favored McCain by 5%. What is the reason/best possible explanation for this? ~EdGl (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Staten Island provides this information: "Staten Island's politics differ considerably from New York City's other boroughs. Although in 2005 44.7% of the borough's registered voters were registered Democrats and 30.6% were registered Republicans, the Republican Party holds a small majority of local public offices. Staten Island is the base of New York City's Republican Party in citywide elections ... In national elections Staten Island is not the Republican stronghold it is in local elections, but it is also not the a Democratic stronghold the rest of New York City is. The borough is a Republican-leaning swing county, though like the New York suburbs in Long Island and Westchester County it has become increasingly Democratic since the 1990s." The article also states that it is the most suburban of the five boroughs and that it also has a significantly higher population of whites. Tomdobb (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a matter of race. Suffolk County, a suburban county of New York, has a higher percentage of whites and a lower percentage of blacks than Staten Island, but Obama won Suffolk County. It is also a matter of class and education. Staten Island has a lower percentage of people who have completed a university degree than Suffolk County or than the New York State average, according to this Census source. According to this source, Obama did better among whites with university educations, whereas McCain did better among whites without university educations. Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in reading this, from conservative analyst Daniel Finkelstein. I'm not sure how right it is, but it goes into the sort of issues that I think are in play in your question. 81.154.63.225 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my analysis is that less educated whites, who make up a (bare) majority of Staten Island's population, are feeling deeply insecure in these economically troubled times and afraid that their jobs will be taken away by darker-skinned people and/or foreigners. For this reason, many of them are uncomfortable with Obama, who is both darker-skinned and partly foreign and who moreover has the mannerisms of an educated sophisticate. Many preferred McCain's reassuring ordinary-white-guy demeanor and his cultivated reputation of being tough and stalwart. On the other hand, non-whites and educated whites are prepared to look beyond color and are drawn in this economic crisis to Obama's obvious intelligence and effectiveness, at least at building a groundbreaking campaign organization. Marco polo (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming a six foot tall goalkeeper standing in the middle of the goal, one foot off of his line, where is the hardest place for him to save the ball? Similarly, will a right-footed goalkeeper be able to jump further to his left or right, or will the difference be negligible? And how fast would a ball have to travel from 20 yards out in order to render the goalkeeper unable to react in time? Thanks in advance. 81.154.63.225 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Depends on where the kicker is, but assuming he is in line with the middle of the goal, the hardest place for the goalie to save the ball would be near the four corners of the goal, but preferably the lower corners because it's harder to save balls near your feet.
2. I think it would be negligible.
3. Assuming a .5 second reaction time (reaction and jumping), it would have to be ~90mph. A ridiculous allowance of around 1 second and the shooter could get away with a ~50mph shot.

Hope this helps; I'm sure there are better answers out there. ~EdGl (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why a straight-line kick isn't much use. You can't get the ball going fast enough to beat his reaction time. The trick is to make the ball curve in mid-flight to either reduce his reaction time (if he waits to see if it's going to swerve before he reacts) - or give yourself a 50-50-ish chance if he guesses which way it's going to curve before it actually does. This makes solving the question mathematically a bit tricky. SteveBaker (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a right-footed keeper would be slightly better at diving left since they would be pushing off with their stronger right leg. Recury (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have broken a vertebra. The doctor told me which one it was, but it was all numbers to me, so I can't specify. Anyway, I am experiencing severe chest pain, on both sides of my chest, so my doctor says it is part and parcel of breaking your back as that is where the nerve centre is. Now, is this right? I have no reason to doubt the doctor (other than the fact it took 3 months for her to refer me for an X-Ray), but I have had this problem for 5 months now (I went to her after 2 months).--ChokinBako (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a doctor instead of unqualified strangers on the internet. Friday (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a doctor (see above).--ChokinBako (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then find another doctor and be more persistent / insistent. We do not give medical advice. You are asking for medical advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ChokinBako, getting a second opinion means getting a second doctor's medical opinion. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a request for medical advice. If you don't trust your doctor, ask another doctor. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the oldest continously active wikipedian? I assume Jimbo Wales, but I thought I would ask first. Also, is there a list somewhere of the longest editting people on wikipedia by year of registration?

Without even checking, I can guarantee that there are many active Wikipedians who are older than Jimbo. I myself am almost certainly older than him, judging from the photos I've seen of him. He's probably been editing WP longer than anyone else, though, because he created it. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the op meant longest active wikipedian. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was ambiguous. The first question was about "oldest", and the second was about "longest", so I played a dead bat and responded on the basis they really were different questions. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The longest continuously active Wikipedian would most likely be found on the list of Wikipedians by edit count... ~EdGl (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. There are numerous people there who are "younger" Wikipedians than me but have more edits. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking through Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival and seeing which early joiners are still active. I see three or four who joined in January 2001 with recent edits. Rmhermen (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the US presidential line of succession lists the top 16 or so, but I was wondering, who comes after that. If by some happenstance the president, his entire cabinet and both houses of congress were eliminated, who would take over? Would there be an emergency general election? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contingency for this. After 9/11, some people got together and made some recommendations for constitutional provisions to cover such an emergency situation, but their ideas weren't acted upon. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mwalcoff, there's not any law that contemplates such a situation. From a practical standpoint, the U.S. government always assigns at least one designated survivor during major state events (the State of the Union, the Presidential inauguration, etc.). The designated survivor is a member of the Cabinet from the United States presidential line of succession who remains in a safe and undisclosed location; if a foreign power or terrorist organization were to launch an attack, the designated survivor would remain to assume the Presidency.

Note that designated survivors are only assigned for major events; it is conceivable that a surprise attack or widespread disaster could actually wipe out the line of succession. (This is one of the major criticisms of the designated survivor protocol.) One also wonders how the country would fare if America woke up in the morning to find that the Secretary of the Interior had assumed the Presidency.

Honestly, though, my money is on a military coup if all of the Cabinet and both houses were eliminated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The governors of 47 states have the power to appoint senators and representatives. Three states require special elections. If the national leaders were somehow wiped out, without the rest of the nation being wiped out, it would thus be possible to reconstitute a quorum by prompt appointments from the states. Then the representative elected by the representatives as Speaker of the House could resign that office and become President. If there were no Speaker of the House then the new President pro tem of the Senate could become President of the U.S. Edison (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a secret succession like the Eisenhower Ten. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A correction here -- governors can appoint replacement senators in most states, but not representatives. Members of the lower house must be elected. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related question, I sometimes wonder whether any of the Several States has a constitutional provision for what to do if the Potomac regime should appear permanently nonfunctional. —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not rely on how a regime happens to "appear nonfunctional." (Didn't a few of those several states have an experiment along those lines in the 1860s?) And with 135,000,000 million Americans appearing to find value in voting, it's good to keep in mind that prediction is hard, especially about the future. Just ask Karl Rove and his permanent majority. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that such a provision would have more precise language in place of "appear nonfunctional". (No, 1861 is not an example.) —Tamfang (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who designed the dress Michelle Obama wore to her husband's victory rally?

I hear she likes J. Crew Louis Waweru  Talk  00:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, the designer is Narciso Rodriguez. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since you aren't really allowed to kill the President Elect - if you start to ask him "Does this make me look fat?" - the secret service guys whisk you away before he gets to answer. So clearly she never actually asked...because wearing a dress with a large red oval over the top of your stomach is certainly going to do that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shape of the red oval made her look not so much fat as pregnant; perhaps it was some sort of symbol for the rich fertility of the American... something-or-other? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srsly, she's not being compared to an anorexic supermodel, is she? Welcome to the White House Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Let's see your clothes before we make commentary on your political impact. Wasn't it Nancy Reagan who was criticized for wearing dresses more than once to occasions? And wasn't it Palin who was criticized for spending a buttload of money for a new wardrobe? --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, the piece I saw on the news about her dress had her picture next to a picture of a model wearing the same dress. Recury (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source that Marco Polo linked to includes a picture of the dress on a model. Dismas|^(talk) 18:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a pregnant black widow? —Tamfang (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Military?
• Politics?
• Science?
• Writing?
• Music?
• Cinema?
• Sex?
• Architecture?
• Philosophy?
• Religion?
• Everything?

A barnstar to each of those who post the human that most others agree is the winner in each category. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely subjective. I doubt you could find an answer to any of those that even 50% of people would agree with. --Tango (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "most" in the Electoral College sense. They don't need the absolute majority, just the proportional. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say what now? You do need an (absolute) majority in the Electoral College to win the election there. Otherwise it's decided in the House (if you're running for president) or the Senate (if you're running for veep). --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to relate to popular vs. electoral vote, but you're right, bad comparison. What I mean is, if User:Example has 3 out of 10 users agree with his choice, and no other users have 3, than Example does not have absolute majority (70% disagree), but he still wins. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think we want the refdesk turned into a giant pin-the-name-on-the-label competition.--Tagishsimon (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like I'm posting a seperate tab for every question, clogging up the Reference Desk. I'm not trying to be disruptive, I just want to hear some educated opinions on this (something which are rather hard to find in my hometown). If you want this question removed, I will gladly do so. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Anglo-Saxon world... for politics, Machiavelli, for writing, Shakespeare, for sex, Casanova, for military, Napoleon, for science, Einstein. Dull, standard, stereotypical answers that are extremely contestable—best you can come up with for something like this. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only Anglo-Saxon person in that list is Shakespeare. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that they were all Anglo-Saxons, I meant those are answers people in an Anglo-Saxon world would probably give. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I read the list as "Shakespeare, for sex; Casanova, for military..." which would have been more controversial. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why semi-colons should be used in lists involving commas. I originally read it like that, too. Useight (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Frank Lloyd Wright for architecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.52.204 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's what I would call productive ambiguity ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for music, people like J. S. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (all Germanic, funnily enough) are usually mentioned in polls of the "greatest" composers, but really, it's so utterly subjective as to make it pretty meaningless. When it comes to singers and other performers who didn't compose, the field is wide open, and it would be a different set of names for every different genre, of which there are hundreds, and they seem to be sprouting new genres by the day. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me, at extreme focus, it's specialist sniper Simo Häyhä. For your last point, Everything, at Polymath there's a long list of recognised polymaths from wa-ay back, a short list of sports polymaths, and polymaths in fiction. To some they're cultural constructs and the idea of a Renaissance man can be anything down to someone who's ambidextrous or walks and chews gum at the same time. Btw, in CliotheMuse's time there were some snappy straw polls on what makes a person sexy, best novels, etc – livened things up a little with loads of interesting links and revelations. More please, Julia Rossi (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good times, good times. I miss Clio. :( bibliomaniac15 05:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all miss Clio. Things aren't quite the same now... Gwinva (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever get the feeling that all of that was orchestrated by Clio and/or her drooling toadies? Was it really just a coincidence that so many questions happened to be asked about things she could answer expertly? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think she might come back if we all turn into drooling toadies, asking the right questions? Gwinva (talk) 09:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was a coincidence, I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I think her expertise was entirely genuine. However I also think she was quite haughty and intolerant of people who didn't share her views, which is something she seemed to get away with on a fairly regular basis. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we got some great questions. (No offence to the current posters.) Gwinva (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Clio phenomenon was quite strange, in a way, not so much about Clio herself, but about the effect she seemed to have on others (which is not about Clio exercising some power, but about others suspending their critical faculties). I was often amazed by the tendency of other people to become what seemed like fawning acolytes who hung on every word she said and sent her regular messages extolling her virtues. Don't get me wrong; I have the greatest respect for her academic creds. But often, she'd produce a lengthy response - sometimes with refs, sometimes not - but even without any refs, others would often simply copy her responses wholesale into relevant articles. That is surely not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. The words of Clio or anyone else on a Ref Desk page do not constitute a published source. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk is not for polls or discussions. If you want to discuss things go to a forum. Those are the house rules. If this had been some anon asking about the best football player or wondering how he could fix his acne he'd would have been blasted off the page. Some older hands should know better!! Richard Avery (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awww Richard A, you are correct! but polls for suggestions would fit. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weeell, OK, just this once ;-)) Richard Avery (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the internet, Chuck Norris is the master of everything.--Dlo2012 (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for those areas ruled by Bruce Schneier. Algebraist 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been removed. The reference desk is not the place to ask for personal advice. 203.122.33.194 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor for anonymously removing questions either! Richard Avery (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored below - we only remove obvious trolling or requests for legal or medical advice and similar things. This question is probably not answerable with a factual answer, but advice/opinion can certainly be given. Exxolon (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. There is a girl I like and I have been talking to her for quite some time and she seems to like me too but how do I make sure I don't blow it now. I usually seem to do most of the chasing right but mess it up at the crunch time. Thanks. 124.30.235.62 (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Best advice - keep it simple and honest - "Would you like to go out with me?" is a good line. Exxolon (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of sack, perhaps? TastyCakes (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cook her dinner, have a couple of bottles on wine on hand. When the moment is right, strike.--Woland (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know that no-one can at this stage say - except perhaps Mrs. Clinton herself - but if she still wants to run for President as a Democrat, she will have to wait either until Mr. Obama demits office in 4 years time without competing for a 2nd term, or she waits until he has completed his 2nd term in 8 years time, at which time she will be around 70 years old - I think. BUT, are there any circumstances that would allow her to compete against the incumbent in 4 years time, even should he want to aim for a 2nd term himself? 92.20.105.141 (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No special circumstances are required. If she wants to, she can compete for the Democratic party nomination in 2012. She would be unlikely to succeed unless Obama's presidency was seen as going very badly. Algebraist 10:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Members of an incumbent president's party have challenged the him in the nomination for a second term -- Eugene McCarthy, for example, ran against Lyndon Johnson in 1968. As Algebraist says, any member of the president's party can seek the nomination that would be the president' second term, but it's a monumental challenge to overcome the benefits of incumbency. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're always going to face some primary challenge. You think with around 100m people in your party you're going to get away without someone challenging you? Presumably you're talking about challengers that actually manage to make some serious noise. To the best of my recollection the last such case was when Ronald Reagan challenged Gerald Ford in 1976. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I now understand. I had somehow imagined that an incumbent political party would not want to face the excruciating public embarrassment of sponsoring a competitor against an incumbent president. 92.23.201.248 (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They probably wouldn't suffer the embarrassment; the nomination of the incumbent is overwhelmingly common because the party rarely does sponsor a competitor. Plasticup ^T/C 15:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the incumbent is bad enough for someone else to win the nomination then the incumbent is the embarrassment. --Tango (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but to have 16 glorious years of 2 top-notch democrats, what a dream........anyway, that's how long it would take to repair the damage that has been incurred by Bush. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this isn't the place to be advocating for or against any political party. Factual statements are the way to go. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bet Hillary will take over the Senate Health Committee from Ted Kennedy when the latter gets too sick to continue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it permitted - and where - to fly with an inhaler?Mr.K. (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases as long as you have the box and the prescription it should be ok, but call ahead to be sure. The TSA allow all prescription and over-the-counter medications [12] but they will probably screen them first. SN0WKITT3N (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never had trouble. The "no liquids" rule is absurd, and most airport screeners only pay it lip service. That is to say they will take your water bottle, but won't harass you over anything you actually need. Plasticup ^T/C 15:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily true. It all depends on how much the person screening you fears losing their job over not enforcing an arbitrary rule. Medicines, in general, are exempt in small sizes. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or the person screening you can be a real jerk or is having a bad day and decides to take it out on you by enforcing the rules to a ridiculous level. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there ways to reduce Youth Violence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.26 (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to avoid writing a cynical answer as here in Scotland we are surrounded by small islands that are just too far away from the mainland to permit a safe swim ashore. But seriously, I have worked in the youth crime arena for over 35 years and have now despaired of ever reducing youth violence by politically acceptable means. The growth of "yoof culture", the interference by liberal government and other human-rights appointees in family dynamics, the soft-pedalling of our prosecution and judicial processes, gang-culture, drugs and alcohol, all conspire to set our youth apart as being untouchable by individuals, communities and the authorities. So I don't go out after dark and am aware that many of my peer group feel the same way. 92.23.201.248 (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duct tape mittens to their hands.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly i'd question the evidence - is there reliable evidence that violence perpetuated by youths is higher now than in the past? Most evidence i've seen has shown that changes to reporting methods, increased need to report crime (a mugging for example in the past might have resulted in the loss of cash which is rarely insured, but now could result in loss of a phone and/or iPod which are more likely to be insured thus the crime is more likely to be reported). Additionally (and whilst this doesn't mean we shouldn't try stop youth crime, just a factor to consider) the evidence shows that the people who 'fear' crime the most are actually those least likely to be victims of it (the elderly and females) and the people who fear crime the least are the most likely to be victims (young males). As for solutions: Tougher sentencing isn't much of a deterrant if the individual doesn't believe they will be caught, so increasing the likelihood of being caught is key in my eyes. Additionally preventative measures such as promoting team-based activities, trying to get children involved in hobbies/sports/academics so that they have something to focus on, show them the positives they can achieve, things like that could help massively. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd concur with the above assessment; our perception of "the youth" is largely predicated on our temporal distance from our own youth. Remember, that old man shouting on his porch "Those damn kids and their damn music" was once a damn kid with his own damn music... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blame Dr Spock – it's all downhill from there. Julia Rossi (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those that fear crime the most are least likely to be victims only because their fear drives them to avoid situations where they are likely to become victims. Just a thought... --WikiSlasher (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove poverty and make sure children have the majority of the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs met. Make sure their main role models - parents and guardians - don't resort to violence to solve their problems. --Moni3 (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can reduce "youth violence" to zero simply by not considering it to be a separate statistic from violence in general. After all, what makes "youth violence" unique? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm wondering how long on average it takes for errors within the wiki content to be detected by Wikipedia users. I've looked through Wikipedia and the Reference desk but couldn't find that information (if it exists). I had "heard" at a meeting that it takes less than 5 minutes for a major error in popular content to be discovered in Wikipedia, can this be confirmed/denied? thank-you 207.148.171.2 (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there are definitive statistics about how long it takes on average, but it really depends on the popularity of the article and the obscurity of the fact. A clearly-wrong fact on a frequently watched article (e.g. "Barack Obama has three arms") is almost certain to get caught within a minute by the people watchlisting the article or the people patrolling Special:RecentChanges. A fact on a more obscure article may hang around until someone who has the page watchlisted happens to notice. An obscure fact on an unwatched article could theoretically persist indefinitely until someone who knows better happens to read it. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies which has done, IIRC, this exact study. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote, out of context, from the study referred to by Jayron, "In addition, 97% of the vandalism observed is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. Roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that is skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes." -- SGBailey (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on "Recent changes" at the left, you see, as it implies, the latest changes to articles. New IP (anonymous editors) do lots of vandalism. You then have the option to click at the top on changes made by new editors, who do a huge amount of the vandalism. Then it is possible to check the nature of each edit by a new author. Any which are clearly wrong or malicious can be reverted and the vandal warned, or "good faith" inappropriate edits can simply be undone. In these cases, the error will be gone a minute after it is added. Articles about subjects one is very familiar with can be watchlisted and periodically viewed, with erroneous information removed or corrected. There are a great many administrators and other vandal fighters watching new articles and changes to existing articles, although many articles are on no one's watchlist. Changes to obscure subjects no one really cares about might linger a while, because there are few sources to verfyy information in. This is an argument for only having articles on subjects with numerous reliable and independent references, so that information can be verified. Edison (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - indeed. If you pick your articles by hitting "Random article" - the odds are heavily skewed in favor of getting something obscure - and that pushes the average way up. If you were to measure the average number of readers who saw a vandalised article - the numbers would look a heck of a lot better because the vast percentage of readers are reading the articles that most responsible editors are patrolling. There is no doubt that obscure articles don't get fixed immediately...but then they also get vandalised a lot less. Check out articles like Computer or Automobile and you'll get a much better feel for how vandal fighting works out in practice. Computer was protected against IP edits on October 17th last year. In the 24 hours before it was locked down, it was vandalized 24 times - and from just a casual glance through the history, most of those were fixed in minutes - although one or two stayed there for as long as 40 minutes - none of them lasted an hour. 100% of that vandalism was by anonymous editors and 0% of the useful edits that day were by anon's. In the entire YEAR since the article has been protected so that only users with accounts can edit it, it hasn't been vandalised even once. The message is clear. Wikipedia's core policy of allowing ANYONE to edit is a good one - but letting them do it anonymously is killing us! SteveBaker (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above comments, someone could also add a bogus citation, or one that is just as obscure as the article itself. And I hope I'm not giving anyone ideas, but if you find a relatively unobscure topic that has a poor article, add a made-up fact and attribute it to a source that you haven't read, people are more likely to leave it there because they haven't read the source either, and don't know enough about it to remove it or call bullsh!t on it. But the same question arises at any academic review or fact checking with a reliable source. It's what go the New York Times in so much trouble a few years ago. --Moni3 (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find recent information about how much the Canadian federal government raises from the individual provinces to compare to how much it spends on each province. While where the federal government spends its money is fairly easy to find on the finance website here, where the money comes from seems to be far harder to find, as in I haven't been able to. Can anyone help? TastyCakes (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source seems to provide the information that you seek. Marco polo (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this at the gas station while filling up. Placards on the pump and walls with all the safety precautions (turn engine off, etc) included what to do if the pump catches fire. The instructions were to leave the pump in the car's tank (makes sense), and back away from the pump. This strikes me as a bit counter-intuitive. I would think you would want to turn your face away to protect it from a flare-up, as well as to see where you're going so you don't trip while backing up. Anyone have the rationale for backing away from a gasoline fire? Arakunem^Talk 00:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that they meant "run away" (which would seem fairly obvious, I hope), but that doesn't sound quite right when put on a set of safety instructions, so they tried to make it sound "proper". Or something to that affect. --(Flying Ninja Monkey) ^(Banana!) 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who run have a higher likelyhood of tripping, as do people who turn around in place; it is probably safer to be moving at some rate of speed away from the fire than lying on the ground next to it with a twisted ankle. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my last question, one person replied that if one want to become a Christian Universalist but lives where there is no Christian Universalist church nearby, then one should seek online help for advice.

But the problem is that I am using a computer at school and I can't go on to such websites because they are not whitelisted.

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that you get yourself to an internet café or public library where you can have free access to the Internet and research churches that you might contact. You might start with our article Universalism for a list of denominations. If you are in China and cannot access the websites of churches that interest you even from a non-school computer, you could let us know if there is a particular denomination that interests you, and we could perhaps find a telephone number for you to contact. However, if you really want to become a member of a church, it would be best to have face-to-face contact with other members to learn the culture and practices of that church. Therefore, you might consider traveling to a place where your church is active and spending a week or two visiting members of the church. Marco polo (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]