January 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I googled [shellfish cheese] and found many entries. This first one[1] is from a site called "cooking.com". My first thought was maybe there was some health-related issue, but apparently not. It's not a question of being kosher, since shellfish are not kosher in any case. So I don't know what that judge's problem was. But maybe one of wikipedia's Galloping Gourmets will have some insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I once whistled at a dog, and it became angry at me because it was a very high-pitched wistle. However the dog had a leash on. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 16

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

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

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

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

I've looked for this in the past myself and never managed to find anything - suprising if it's not somewhere hidden in the depths of the internet Coolcato (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

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

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

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

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

This[2] article is pretty good. The "lady novelist" line is original, put different performances have used different lyrics over the years. It's not unusual for G&S lyrics, especially topical to be tweaked to be more relevant to modern audiences. PhGustaf (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This question certainly rings a bell[3] Richard Avery (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

It'd be a strange 7/11 which sold tomatoes. Marnanel (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't sell things like tomato sauce or tinned tomatoes, what do they sell? Even my tiny local corner shop sells those. Or do you mean they don't sell fresh veg? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Author,

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

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

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

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

The way I learned was mainly through practice. Try the sandbox, and play around with that as much as you can. I still find it useful. Also, using templates (scroll down on the article editing screen for a list) can help a lot, too. -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Under the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress was a weak enough body that the US might better have been thought of as a federation of independent countries that have chosen to give up a few powers, sort of like the European Union today. The real federal government didn't get going until the articles were replaced by the new constitution in 1789. I've seen it claimed that "the United States" continued to normally be construed as a plural expression until the time of the Civil War, after which it became a singular; I don't know how accurate that is. --Anonymous, 20:32 UTC, January 18, 2010.

If you want a source for that claim, I'm fairly certain it's in America, Empire of Liberty: A New History (series 2, disc 2). It's also cited in the United States article.

I'm surprised to see no mention of the D.C. statehood movement in a discussion of places that aren't states, so here's a mention. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page Territories of the United States explains the somewhat confusing difference between Organized incorporated territories of the United States and Unincorporated territories of the United States. There's more detail than that, but the basic idea is "incorporated territories", whether organized or not, were from the start defined to be part of the United States with no option to separate--thus "incorporated". So for example, when the federal US bought the Louisiana Purchase all of it became incorporated territory. Over time bits and pieces of it were "organized"--meaning territorial governments were set up. The process by which incorporated territories became states was hashed out by Congress--it is not laid out in the Constitution. "Unincorporated territories" are different--they are not irrevocably part of the United States. So to answer the question, Alaska, Arizona, and Oklahoma were from the moment they were acquired by the United States (via the Alaska Purchase, Mexican Cession, and Louisiana Purchase, respectively) were incorporated territory and thus not independent countries. Hawaii was once an independent nation, but from the moment the Newlands Resolution was passed and the US annexed Hawaii, it became an incorporated territory, soon organized as the Territory of Hawaii. The key point is the difference between incorporated and unincorporated territories. Pfly (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the section of the question reading, "Were... really independant countries...," Texas is the only state that was formerly an independant country before joining the Union. The reason for this is that Texas won the Texas Independance war, but Mexico warned the United Statesthat if they were to annex Texas, the government of Mexico would consider that an act of war. So, from 1836 to 1841, the great state of Texas was known as the Republic of Texas. In 1841 (or it may have been 1842...) the United States annexed Texas into the Union, starting the Mexican-American War, a plan devised by the American president of that time to extend the United States from coast to coast, as a part of an idea called Manifest Destiny. Because Texas was originally it's own country, the United States allows the Texas flag to be displayed at an equal or lesser height than the American flag, and is the only state with this privilege. -- Imadeausername! (talk|contribs) 02:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence isn't true (see subsection "f"). There is no exemption in the US Flag Code for the Texan flag; the only flag to which the Flag Code grants that privilege is the flag of the United Nations, and then only at the United Nations headquarters. See Flag of Texas#Urban legend. Marnanel (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This suggests that Barack Obama is the Messiah. If this is the case, then why does he want to teach sex education to kindergarteners, and how come evolution is still taught in our schools? It's obvious that he's really a reptilian and just want us to think that he's our savior. Buddy431 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God created both sex and evolution, so I don't see why He would have a problem with either one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, admit that the Invisible pink unicorn created sex and evolution or She will get cross. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(mhhbb) SteveBaker (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

A developer, like so many street namesakes: [4] -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

If they don't, you can try asking your doctor, at Planned Parenthood (if you're in the US) or your local Family planning clinic. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This type of question, in my experience, is usually asked by someone who really wants to know about Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, or, even more simply, wants to use the Special:Cite tool (or rather they'd want to use that tool if they knew it existed). Jwrosenzweig (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The OP seems to dismiss the title as not entirely serious so perhaps we don't need to take the word generation (of knowledge) literally. The question is about Wikipedia editing activity so the word dissemination (of knowledge) can be more appropriate. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There could be some merit to the idea. I recall that 9 months after Mt. St. Helens erupted in May of 1980, which had wrought havoc for a few days, there was a surge in the birthrate in the Pacific Northwest. Johnny Carson made some comment in his monologue about "that big explosion leading to all those little ones!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was claimed (and disputed) that the 1965 New York blackout led to a bumper crop of babies. Likely ditto for Wikipedia edits during a blizzard. Edison (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recall that factoid. Your last comment reminds me of a blurb in Reader's Digest, of all things, which is a somewhat long story, so I'll skip to (and somewhat alter) the punch line: the typical wikipedia editor has both a wife and a mistress, because each one will think their man is with the other one, and then he can get all the editing done that he wants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Yes, I was refering to the amount of editing done on Wikipedia. We have so many clever data-crunchers that I wondered if anyone had tried to calculate the impact of bad weather (i.e. enforced staying at home) with WP contributions. Widespread closures of businesses and schools is geographically trackable, and ISPs are too. I don't know enough to say whether the two data sets can be brought together in any sensible way. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

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

1 package active dry yeast

1/4 cup warm (110 degeres) water

1 cup whole wheat flour

1/4 cup brown sugar

3 cups rye flour

1 tablespoon salt

Enough hot water to create a stiff batter.

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

Our yeast article says

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above shows the truth of how it is best to ask a Baker for information about baking. Edison (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel so...typecast. SteveBaker (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have checked a number of kitchen thermometers and found them to be quite inaccurate. So your "110 deg F" thermometer might be reporting the temperature a few degrees lower than the actual temperature, which could discourage yeast growth. Some thermometers can be checked with boiling and freezing water. The small mass of water compared to the other ingredients means that the temperature of the dough may vary. An accurate thermometer is needed to make sure that the dough rises for a lengthy period in a chamber of the right temperature. By experimentation, I have found that my over-the-range microwave with the over-the-range light bulbs left on yields an appropriate temperature for yeast to make the bread rise. My bread machine similarly provides the right temperature for yeast. Edison (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Is there anyone not living in a cave who needs their "awareness" of Haiti and its relief efforts raised? --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Non-Western areas most likely have far less knowledge of what is going on, but as far as I know, those pins are not heavily marketed in Bhutan, or Chad. Googlemeister (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pin-wearing has little to do with awareness and much to do with conformity, making a statement and being a team player. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

There is a similar question here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Death_rates_in_prisons 78.146.95.197 (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

@DJ Clayworth you are entirely right and I should have been clearer. My reply to Question A compared relative likelihoods of being stabbed in prison or civilian areas, with examples to show that the imbalance could swing either way. I was not trying to link any prison to its own neighbourhood. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Exactly. Almost never allowed at trial, but at pre-trial issues without a jury, it's pretty standard. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now that Kiddie Kandids is in Chapter 7, I doubt that I will get my pictures. and it will be double blow if I can't at least get them in digital form. how do I go about attempting to get my pictures?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxetnella (talk • contribs) 18:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article about a few parents racing into the store back on January 12 to get copies of the digital files before the corporate servers were shut down. That article has an irate quote from the Better Business Bureau in Utah; maybe you could contact them and ask if they've found any solution. This article from the Salt Lake Tribune says that "Customers who ordered photos from the company appear to be out of their money and photos", but the lazy reporter did not explain this. Under normal circumstances he'd be right; somewhere there is a hard disk with your photos, and it's going to get sold at a bankruptcy auction to the highest bidder, who will then possess the thousands of digital photos with no obligation to the customers. The hard disk might then get reformatted, or maybe the buyer, if unscrupulous, might claim copyright on all the photos and sell them all to a stock photo agency — who knows. It's a shame. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(They probably can't claim copyright on the photos just because they got the hard drives at an auction—authorship rights are probably not being auctioned off, and physical ownership is not copyright ownership. They can't sell photos to a stock photo agency without a model release unless they want to get into a lot of trouble.) --Mr.98 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much more should be said here on the subject, since I think this gets dangerously close to legal advice territory. The trustee in the case might be able to be a point of reference, but then again he/she might also decide to not answer any questions. We might direct you to our Bankruptcy article, or better yet, perhaps to a local legal aid or bar association. Shadowjams (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a name for those little china birds which one puts in a pie to hold the crust up and vent steam? DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pie bird. Marnanel (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous, thank you. Far too obvious a name for the likes of me! DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not many pies would fit four and twenty blackbirds: see Sing a Song of Sixpence. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

I was unsure if this belonged in Science, Entertainment, or Computing, so here it goes...

On my car's stereo, the song title and artist will scroll across the display on some stations. And sometimes the name of the radio show will scroll across but not the songs that the show is playing. Then there's one station where none of this happens. First, what's the name for this technology and do we have an article? Also, where does the song title and artist come from? Does the DJ put it into a computer and then it's broadcast with the song? Or is it embedded in the song somehow? Do the stations that use this technology have all their music as MP3s or some such file? And does the other station that doesn't have song titles scrolling therefore do all their DJ'ing with CDs? Dismas|^(talk) 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS This is all terrestrial radio. I don't have satellite radio or anything special like that. Dismas|^(talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's called Radio Data System (or RDS). The article explains how it works. DuncanHill (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That answers some of my questions. Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the suitable colour combinations of ties vis-a-vis colour of the shirt and trousers , to be worn on both on formal and informal ocassions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.177.97 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UK) It depends on the occasion. If you are invited to a "black tie" dinner, you will be required to wear a white shirt, plain tie (preferably black and bow ties are more formal), and black, dark grey or striped trousers. Generally, black trousers/white shirt is more formal than any other combination. Also for more formal occasions, keep the ties plain and dark. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errm - "black tie" implies a whole semi-formal dress code, including bow tie, dress shirt and dinner jacket/tuxedo for gentlemen. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but OP didn't ask about the DJ bit! --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and a black tie, or at least one with sober patterns and colours, is often considered appropriate at a funeral. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Color wheel and the various 'rules' that are applied. Opposite colours on the colour-wheel are considered attractive, as are colours very close to it on the colour wheel. It's really no different for ties/shirts than any other item of clothing. Trousers-wise the main 'rule' (if such a thing exists) is that black trousers should be worn with a black belt and black shoes, whereas blue-trousers should be worn with brown/tan shoes and belt. Colours that match nicely in ties/shirt combos...light shirt with dark-tie (both same 'colour' just different shades)...white shirt with a hint of colour (say in a cheque/stripes) - match the tie with the stripe/cheque colour. Best bet - look in shirt-shops for the 'combos' they sell and try to use those as a basis of colour-matching (they're usually reasonable matches). 09:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

". . . blue-trousers should be worn with brown/tan shoes and belt"? Not in my neck of Blighty's woods, where for the last forty years I and most others have more often combined black belt and shoes with blue trousers; light blue shirts with brown trousers, however, are quite usual. I wouldn't dissent from TammyMoet's and 194's tie suggestions, but really, such sartorial questions must depend on local customs that probably differ widely worldwide - rather than canvass from possibly divergent cultures to one's own, it would be better to visit a local business district and spend an hour observing what the better-turned-out individuals there favour, both in terms of colour and width. Remember, however, that tie choice is one of the few areas where, except in the most formal situations, males are permitted a considerable degree of individual expression. All that said, the advice of any slightly sartorially conservative female friend is likely to be more reliable than that of most men, including myself! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, brown shoes with a blue suit is a major fashion faux pas. I understand that is because long in the past black dye was more expensive, so to wear brown (except for camouflage when out in the country) signified that you were poor. The shirt should be a pale shade, the tie should be a darker shade. Usually the tie has a pattern (definately not any picture or lettering!) and the shirt can be a paler or pastel version of one of the colours in the pattern. I would avoid a striped shirt until you have more experience - just choose a shirt in a pale pastel shade without any pattern of any kind. Its a sign of the times that people dont have years of experience of wearing shirt and ties already and don't have to ask. 78.146.100.48 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question some evidence for the 'fashion faux pas' 78.146 - a quick google search for 'brown shoes with black trousers' suggests that black-trousers should not been worn with brown shoes (generally). Certainly from a colour-perspective that makes perfect sense to me - black and brown are quite difficult to match and you don't see a huge amount of it done ;within' clothes themselves. Sample link: http://uk.askmen.com/fashion/fashiontip/38_fashion_advice.html 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not wear brown shoes with black trousers or suits either. Only wear them with fawn or beige trousers. I'm puzzled how you hallucinated that I suggested that bad-taste fashion combination. Somewhat offended too. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second Gandalf in saying "Don't wear a plain black tie to a black tie dinner". Black tie is a distinct combination requiring a bow tie and dinner suit.

One rule for playing it safe is not to match a patterned shirt with a patterned tie. One or the other should be plain. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP says "to be worn on both on formal and informal ocassions", implying the same outfits are going to be worn on both informal and formal occasions. That begs the question of what the definition of "formal" is. In general, a simple rule would be to get a cream shirt and wear it with a tie that is a similar (but not identical) colour to the trousers. Although with black trousers I would go for a tie with a colourful pattern. 78.151.106.238 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been searching for semi-rimless glasses with the rim on the bottom, but there is literally an ocean out there of glasses with the rim on the top that keeps on clogging up my searches. Anybody care to help me find a pair of these bad boys? Thanks!

173.14.1.190 (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your optician can help you -- check out an actual live proprietor in an actual live store. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may need the image for other purposes. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

The OP never said that he needed an image. The way I read it, he needs the actual physical frames. Dismas|^(talk) 14:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the OP *might* be an artist looking for a reference image. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Some here: [5] ("Spodden"). Alarmingly cheap, too. Maybe I should buy my glasses online, seems the ones from the actual live shop cost an actual live 100% more. ...wait, clicking on "order now" took me to a different site which doesn't stock those. Maybe the whole thing is bogus. 81.131.52.120 (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy folks, OP here. Yes, I'm actually looking for a physical pair of glasses. Pref. male or intersex. I didn't think they'd be this hard to come by really. 173.14.1.190 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I've ever seen ones like you describe. I just paged through my favorite online glasses vendor's half-rim collection and didn't see a one. They've got the ones where the rims are over the top, and a few where they're over a the side in a weird way(here), but none where the frame is on the bottom.

If you're crafty, perhaps you could get a pair of rimless and modify them to get your desired look? Probably not the answer you were looking for, sorry. APL (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found one!. I hope your head is 132mm wide, because they only seem to stock these in one size.

Also look at these out. They're similar looking to what you want, but there is a subtle partial frame along the top as well. APL (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

APL- This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I was looking for. Phew! I owe you one! 173.14.1.190 (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Why are your rimless spectacles lensless? A: Because I have perfect vision. -- Spike Milligan. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason more substantial than the admittedly valid one that it's their website and they can do what they want with it why the highest year one can see at timeanddate.com/calendar is 3999?20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious reason. 3999 is 0xF9F suggesting that it should at least be able to cope up to 4095 as 0xFFF. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It's a little known fact, but that's when the world ends.... but seriously, I don't think there is any technical reason to end it then. Depending on how they calculate their dates, there are some points that become arbitrary end-points—like the Year 2038 problem. But 3999 isn't one of those cutoffs, I don't think. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would speculate that it's due to uncertainty over whether a 4000-year rule for leap years will be instituted. See Gregorian calendar#Accuracy. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is probably the reason - but under present rules, 4000 is a leap year for the same reason that 2000 was. But a lot could change in 2000 years! SteveBaker (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one knows yet whether Herschel's proposed correction to the Gregorian calendar will be implemented. He suggested making years which are multiples of 4000 not leap years, thus reducing the average length of the calendar year from 365.2425 days to 365.24225. Although this is closer to the mean tropical year of 365.24219 days, his proposal has never been adopted because the Gregorian calendar is based on the mean time between vernal equinoxes (currently 365.2424 days) and because these observed values are currently increasing. Dbfirs 08:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do American police really refer to themselves as 'Cops'?Froggie34 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? It's not seen as offensive or belittling over here. It's a little informal, but that's it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informally and out of uniform, some American police will refer to themselves as cops. However—and my in-laws are a police family—not all police are comfortable with the label. Some do consider it disrespectful. I think almost none of them would use it to refer to themselves while in uniform and dealing with the public. Marco polo (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some US police even embrace the "pigs" moniker (so long as they use it. All-police football teams often call themselves the Hogs. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not seen as disrespectful when children play "cops and robbers," or at least that's what the game was called deades ago. (Wow, I sounded old there! :-) The people I know who call them that probably use it because they just used that term playing as kids; I know just as many peple who call them "poolice." but, if that's consistent, then the ones who do call themselves that probably just grew up with the term, and would be likely to think, "Wow, I can't believe just 20 years ago I was playing cops and robers with friends, and now I'm a real cop."209.244.187.155 (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment, Marco polo; I assumed, being an American word, the Americans had fully embraced it. In NZ, the word is so mainstream, the Police use it for themselves even in official contexts, such as their recruitment website "New Cops". On a related note, in the UK, I knew a policeman who always referred to himself as a "copper". Gwinva (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know one Australian policeman who has (or at least had, a few years back) a T-shirt with the logo "Pride Integrity Guts" (ie PIGs), so apparently Australian policement have turned the "insult" into a "compliment". A Goodle search suggests that the same backronym may occur elsewhere. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=pride+integrity+guts&meta=&aq=1&oq=pride+integr

Cop is short for Copper which came about because the first British police wore copper helmets. British police do refer to themselves as 'coppers' - but probably not 'cops'. SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so: it's a person who "cops", i.e. arrests, people. ("It's a fair cop", etc.) Marnanel (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What snopes leaves out is the origin of "to cop" ("to sieze, capture, or steal"). According to my old Webster's, it is "probably" from Old French caper which is from Latin capere, which as you might guess, is also the origin of "to capture". Used in the sense of "steal", an example would be the expression "to cop a feel". Such as, of a roll of Charmin. Less obvious, perhaps, is a more modern usage, to "cop a plea". I might speculate that means to "take" a plea instead of going to trial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the thoughts and references. Somehow I doubt that "I'm a cop" has the same punch as "I'm a policeman". Or just "Police!" as against "Cop!" The police, after all, set out to psychologically dominate - a necessary part of their activity since they must control a situation. Hence: "Name?" "John Smith." "John, where were you on...."Froggie34 (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why does a radium emit light in dark??/ where does it gets the light energy???

thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.251.178 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's radioactive. Read the articles linked herein. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radium is an alpha emitter, and alpha radiation is not directly visible. This page discusses how the radium was combined with ZnS, which glowed in the presence of alpha radiation. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, radium also emits light in the light -- just not enough for it to visible. It is washed out by ambient luminance. Vranak (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luminescence ≠ luminance. --Sean 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed it. Vranak (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Can anyone tell me for a fact who invented Moose Tracks Ice Cream flavour. A company in upper Michigan claims to have invented it but I heard it was invented elsewhere, actually in Canada. Seems odd that a Michigan company would pick a name like Moose Tracks but that name would not be all that odd in CanadaWindDancerCanada (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are moose in the Upper Peninsula, although I suppose it would be more usual to see a moose in Canada. There is "tiger tail" ice cream though and certainly the inventor of that never saw a wild tiger. I don't think it means much. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denali Flavors in Michigan claims to have originated the name of the flavor. They've even made moosetracks.com their domain name. I am guessing that they would have faced some kind of lawsuit from the inventor of the name if their very public claim were false. Not all moose are Canadian. Moose's range extends into the northern United States, and many of us who live in the northern parts of the United States have seen moose. Denali Flavors is based in a part of Michigan that does not have moose, but people from that part of Michigan often spend summer vacations canoeing or camping in the Upper Peninsula, where there are moose. Marco polo (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also clear that "tracks" is a bowdlerization of the commercial novelty of Template:Websearch being sold under various pretexts, so perhaps the only new thing the ice cream folks did was to get people to eat the stuff as a treat. --Sean 21:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something not completely different: Møøse Droppings Ice Cream was obviously invented by these Norwegians, ja. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

In Michigan our moose-loving Norwegians are Finns: Finnish American distribution. I actually know one of the lawyers (in a Grand Rapids, Michigan law firm) who works on Moose Tracks licensing so I am pretty certain the claims are on a firm standing. Rmhermen (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

Are there any schools near Liverpool, England which offer Russian as an A-Level subject? I'm trying to pick a 6th form and Russian would decide it for me, but Liverpool Council and Edexcel (only exam board that does Russian) both refused to tell me. Thanks! 89.195.90.196 (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would they refuse to tell you? Perhaps they couldn't be bothered to find out, or perhaps they were having a joke at your expense ("we could tell you but it's a KGB secret"), but I would try asking them again. Failing that, you could try phoning the schools themselves - here is a list of secondary schools within 25 miles of Liverpool. Astronaut (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cowley Language College offer Russian language classes but it's unclear from their website whether these are at A-Level, they're in St Helens. [6]] Nanonic (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very few schools are able to offer Russian at A-level because there is minimal demand. The City Council will be aware of past curriculum statements from its schools, but could not guarantee that these will continue in future years since such minority courses often depend on a single teacher of the language. Each school sets its own curriculum. Similarly, the examination board will know whether the school has been used as a centre for the examination, but not whether the course is actually taught there. Your only options are the individual websites where they usually give a list of subjects at advanced level, or individual telephone calls. As Nanonic suggests above, a Language College is likely to offer a wider choice of languages, and some might have an arrangement with a local university to enable you to attend A-level Russian lessons there (paid for by the school) whilst studying your other subjects at the school. Dbfirs 08:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, if you want to study Russian language at university, it is possible to do so without Russian A level: it would be good, however, if you were to prove that you can study at least one language at A level, so don't limit yourself too much at this stage. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've learned that according to legend Brutus of Troy founded Britain, and Aeneas founded Rome. Are there any other empires, countries, or other notable places that Trojans founded according to legend? This is not a homework assignment, I'm just curious. 169.231.9.45 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mythical founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus, were allegedly Aeneas' grandchildren somehow descendants of Aeneas. I don't think you can give him credit for "founding Rome" and the articles are more careful to say The journey of Aeneas from Troy, (led by Venus, his mother) which led to the founding of the city Rome, is recounted in Virgil's Aeneid. Unfortunately, I have nothing further to add besides that clarification. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight begins (in Jessie L Weston's translation), "After the siege and the assault of Troy, when that burg was destroyed and burnt to ashes, and the traitor tried for his treason, the noble Æneas and his kin sailed forth to become princes and patrons of well-nigh all the Western Isles. Thus Romulus built Rome (and gave to the city his own name, which it bears even to this day); and Ticius turned him to Tuscany; and Langobard raised him up dwellings in Lombardy; and Felix Brutus sailed far over the French flood, and founded the kingdom of Britain, wherein have been war and waste and wonder, and bliss and bale, ofttimes since."--ColinFine (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snorri Sturluson begins his prose Edda with a euhemerized account of how the Norse gods were all refugees from Troy. Algebraist 13:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CAN THERAPEUTIC INTERGRATION MAKE A DIFFRENCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.174.43 (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To what?Froggie34 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what is the best thing that u like about LIVERPOOL (football club) ???

do you think that if Gerrad n torres will leave the club what will be its future???