Miscellaneous desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 23

searching for battalion listings in second world war

hi my name is chloe dealey and i am trying to find out which battalion my grandfather, james william wheeler was in in the second world war as my aunty would love to march for him as he has died. i've searched the web for hours and can't find any listings of the sort. if you could point me in the right direction it would be greatly appreciated.

thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.90.136.234 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Can you tell us which country he fought for (the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, US, other) and where he was from? Just the county/province is fine. Also, did he die in the war or more recently? --Charlene 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First car flame

Who painted the first flames on cars? If such a thing can be known.. --Quiddity 01:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wild guess here, but could they have been inspired by some of the similar paint jobs on aircraft in WW2 ? StuRat 03:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were inspired by the fact that very-abbreviated exhaust systems on rich-running internal combustion engines actually do shoot out flames at times. A much-more-limited example of this is the back-fire. Atlant 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the art movements in the early 1900s might have led to the initial art cars, or at least an inspirational paintjob or two..? I was hoping for at least a chicken/egg of Pin striping vs other 'standards' such as flames. (As for actual flames/backfires, they've led to exhaust flame kits). So were there no Ford Model T's with proto-Kustom Kulture paintjobs? --Quiddity 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out about this book, Up in Flames: The Art of Flame Painting (ISBN 0760323348). I'll see if it answers my query, if I can find a copy. Thanks anyway :) --Quiddity 19:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mental images of unseen people

Has any research ever been done about the accuracy of someone's mental image of what an unseen other person looks like, compared with what they actually look like?

The question is prompted by the stunning revelation that Clio the Muse is actually blonde. Nothing against blondes, but I always pictured Clio as having naturally jet black hair. Despite her coming out of the blonde closet, my mental image of her as a blackhead just won't go away. (Nothing to do with pimples, btw, or that other great Greek muse, Acne).

I have my mental pictures of what some of the other Ref Desk usual suspects look like, and I guess I have to face the possibility that they too look completely different. JackofOz 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jack, you for one don't look like I would have expected!

That's not my best side, and it's out of date. I used to look like Santa Claus, but now I have only a goatee, so I look like a combination of the 10 handsomest men you've ever met. -- JackofOz 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question was superlatively answered by one Roger M. Vance in a Usenet post from 1995 which, alas, google groups seems not to have in its archive. It's too long to paste into this RD thread, but I have stashed a copy off of my home page for your reading pleasure. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Clio doesn't mind being talked about, while I usually don't think at all about what people look like in RL (unless I actually see a pic of them, like you, Jack), I confess that Clio has always brought to my mind a vague image of that other assertive blonde know-it-all, Nancy Drew. BTW 'know-it-all' was said as a compliment. Anchoress 02:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biting lip hard here. Well, there are studies correlating mental imagery with the subject's emotional health and stress levels. See here, for example. I have no idea how your mind's image (or mine, for that matter) of Clio fit in the Roerich psychodynamic index, however. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting article. I took that test in high school, or one close to it anyways, and the analysis indicated that I have a very high opinion of myself and that I'm extremely interested in sex. Rubbish, obviously. ;-) I'm actually very curious to know if there are studies that indicate what the likelihood or frequency of actually forming mental images of unseen people says about a subject. I don't know if it's odd that I basically never actually try to imagine the looks or circumstances of Wikipedia members. I occasionally do on other boards, where people are more likely to share about their appearance and surroundings. My (very vague) mental image of Clio is undoubtedly due to her frequent references to her boyfriend Ned, her chums George and Bess, and being locked in flooding basements by unknown persons. Anchoress 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding being locked in flooding basements by unknown persons, wouldn't that be Rex Morgan, M.D.'s wife June? She was knocked unconscious and trapped in a flooding basement for (IIRC) six weeks. Hey! She has black hair! --Charlene 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I once had an (R-rated) dream where I was married to Trapper John, M.D. Anchoress 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had pictured a blonde, specifically, Ann Coulter. StuRat 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re the likelihood of formal mental images, I'm no expert but I hazard a guess that it might have to do with one's preferred representational system. I'm highly visual, and I almost always form images of strangers on the phone, and here. JackofOz 03:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My images of Wikipedians are also vague at best. (Friday is orange and fuzzy for instance. Don't ask why.) Unlike reading books, which gives me quite vivid, but also surpisingly flexible, sometimes dream-like images. Since childhood I read The Lord of the Rings perhaps five times, and my Aragorn was quite stable, until Peter Jackson came along and made him look like Viggo Mortensen, an image of which I cannot rid myself anymore (not that I'm complaining). Voices definitely contribute a lot to any mental imaging. I watched an overdubbed Magnum, P.I. in the 1980s, and Thomas Magnum's voice was phenomenal and spoken by de:Norbert_Langer, a more persuasive combination than either the voice with Langer's physical appearance or Tom Selleck with his high and slightly whiny voice. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack: Hmmm, that's interesting in itself. See, I'm a fairly visual learner, and in fact when I'm talking to people on the phone, I often picture them, what they look like, their surroundings. But it's actually very topical, as I just this week realised that when I speak on the phone with my friend from Israel (with whom I have been corresponding for a year via IM), I frequently envision my own representation of what she and her surroundings are like, although I never do so when we are conversing on yahoo. I also, like Sluzzelin, form strong visual images of reading material. Edited to add: Actually, in analysing it further, I'd have to say that I almost never form visual representations of people I don't know, although I sometimes do so with characters in books. I realise that it's surroundings I am more likely to imagine, although I more frequently do so when I'm talking to someone on the phone than with people online. Anchoress 05:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can do quite well from a phone conversation, usually guessing the gender, approximate age, nationality, race, and weight. Hair color I can't tell, however. This came in handy once when one customer service person put me on hold, then an hour later somebody else picked up and asked "who are you holding for ?". I replied that she didn't give her name but she was an overweight, black woman in her 30s from the Southern US. From that description, they knew just who it was. StuRat 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they seek her here, they seek her there, those Wikipedians, seek her everywhere! Being prime among my sex, my own self-image is as a younger version of a great first lady, though in some quarters I appear to be quite another Eve altogether. Maybye the truth is closer to this, or just maybe this. Perhaps you will never know for sure! Clio the Muse 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i always had the image of Katie Derham, ITN newsreader (sorry don't know how to link) until de muse stated that she is blonde - thou we should keep in mind that people lie! (shock horror) and for all we know clio is in fact a 61/2 foot tall builder from Croyden, called dave - (V tongue in cheek! dear clio) a be it a very intelligent builder. To add to the debate of unseen people, what does everyone 'hear' peoples comments/answers as? for instance JackofOx, of course, sounds Australian, and Clio speaks with a BBC accent (sorry can't remember the proper term)Perry-mankster 11:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term I think you are looking for, Perry, is received pronunciation. Oh, ya, says Dave the Builder, who disguises himself as Clio the Muse 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Opportunity! Making this not just chat! Clio, assuming she is upper class as she says (and who can say with internet people), is extremely unlikely to speak RP (BBC English), since that is an Upper-Middle Class accent. It is also the accent historically acquired by people who were 'going up in the world' and wanting to lose their old accent, but I assume that doesn't apply here. If Clio is Upper class or aristocratic, I would expect her to speak with an upper class accent, which is different to RP. For example, RP for 'Henry' is roughly 'Henree'. An aristocrat would say something more like 'Henreh'. Hence the joke about pepperOf course, accents change with time, and some person was claiming a while ago that the Queen's accent was gradually becoming more Estuary English. Skittle 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My cynical way of thinking is that in this age, with digital cameras as common as they are, anyone who doesn't have a picture of themself readily available must be *use your imagination*. Vranak

Interesting. It has never occurred to me to visualize contributors. Though I will admit that whenever I have met someone I first met on-line, they usually turn out to be older and fatter than I had assumed. Do those people who visualize human contributors also find they visualize the bots?--Shantavira 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack of Ox, eh, Perry-mankster? Yes, I've always been a little bovine, thanks to my Taurus ascendant. :) JackofOz 12:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, had never thought about Clio's appearance, nor about anyone else's, except Jack of Oz, since he posts a photo. Personally, I like that on the Reference Desk, or elsewhere on the web, people can be appreciated (or not) for their mental ability rather than their appearance. Marco polo 13:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: The question is ambiguous because you have not defined what you mean by "unseen other person." If you are talking about "user account on a website such as Wikipedia" any such research would almost certainly lack credibility from the start.

Pictures can be doctored and substituted, multiple personnas assumed and discarded, records changed, stats forged; how would you even know if there is a 1:1 correspondence between user account and physical being, let alone whether she/he/other is actually telling the truth. dr.ef.tymac 13:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC) NOTE: This response is general, and is not intended to impugn the conduct or credibility of any Wikipedia contributor, promote personal speculation and gossip, or otherwise discuss similar matters that are obviously beyond the scope of the Reference Desk and a misuse of Wikipedia resources.[reply]

True, I haven't defined that term, because I thought it was readily apparent. As that's not the case, I'll explain. I'm talking about talking on the phone to someone you've never met and whose photo you've never seen. I'm talking about listening to someone talking on the radio whom you've never met and whose photo you've never seen. I'm talking about listening to a CD or your ipod, and hearing a singer whom you've never met and whose photo you've never seen. I'm talking about having an online dialogue or debate with a person or persons whom you've never met and whose photo/s you've never seen. There are probably other ways that don't occur to me right now. My question, which was serious, was about people's perceptions of the appearance of the other person/s without any visual evidence to go on. I don't understand why any research into this would lack credibility. Surely I'm not the first person to have ever wondered about this. (Or maybe I am that weird after all. :) JackofOz 13:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Also, receiving letters and emails from unmet people. JackofOz 22:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable person might indeed have considered the terms of your question to be readily apparent. The nearly 2000 bytes of speculative commentary above (none of which contains a direct answer), however, indicates evidence to the contrary. Since you are a partial (and apparently willing) contributor to that commentary, a reasonable person might also conclude that these "readily apparent" terms were not the sole motivation for your inquiry.

If that is not the case, and you simply lost track of what you were asking in the momentum of the discussion, I am more than happy to have rescued you from your digression. As far as research lacking credibility, please review the narrowly-defined factual context to which I applied that statement if it is still unclear to you. Thank you. dr.ef.tymac 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dr.ef.tymac. You present 2 alternatives, neither of which was the case. But I appreciate your effort. Absence of evidence (of research into this question) is not evidence of absence of it. Maybe, like me, my interlocutors are simply not aware of such research. JackofOz 22:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a longtime public radio listener, I've had occasion to fall mildly in love with a few announcers on the basis of their erudition and charming voices, and then after some years make the mistake of looking up what they look like, invariably to discover why they're in radio and not television; Terri Gross and Judy Swallow were two such. I've learned my lesson by now, so decline to know what Clio or any of my other refdesk favorites look like in the unkind corporeal world. --TotoBaggins 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your edification and delight, Toto, here I am [1] coming out of the bath! I bequeath this ideal to you. Clio the Muse 22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is often a shock to see radio announcers or DJs you have heard for years, and to see how unlike they are to the mental image formed from their voice alone. One distinguished sounding announcer was a fat, greasy little bald-headed guy, and another was a midget. Edison 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example of how bad some people (well, er... me) are at metal pictures, when I was a teenager in a small town, I had a class every day with a male teacher I knew as Mr. Wright (That many years ago, no student would have thought that teachers had a first name). I would then go home, and listen to the local radio station for my favorite D.J. on the Gene Wright show. It took six months for me to realize that they were one and the same. Bunthorne 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't form any mental images of Wikipedia editors. My brain seems adequately occupied with their textual identification... -- mattb 05:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice lengthy chat session, not many stepping up to answer to the original question though, oh well *shrug*. dr.ef.tymac 05:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably somewhere :) But continuing with the above discussion, I find it very diffeicult to imagine people, so I usually don't bother :( I tend to read a lot, and a few of the books I have read recently have pictures of the authors on the back, pictures of people whose work I have been reading sometimes for years, and usually they look nothing like I expected :( But it a way they look even more like they should look than the people I imagined had done :) And when it comes to characterss in books, I usually can't imagine them at all, possibly because they aren't real, but very rarely I read a book where I can see what is happening clearly in my imagination :) Actually this has only happened twice, and once because I had seen the film version before reading the book :] HS7 13:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this discussion, so far, suggests that it's unlikely there's ever been any serious research conducted on the question I asked, it has revealed some fascinating things about people's mental processes, which is a plus. If I may engage in a slight diversion, with dr.ef.tymac's permission. Reflecting on this over the past couple of days, I realise that whenever I play the piano, I virtually always automatically mentally project myself into a scene that connects me in a real way with the music. Sometimes this is unsurprising (eg. a waltz, mazurka, polonaise, etc readily lend themselves to mental imagery of people dancing to those rhythms), but I also do it equally with music with such unevocative titles as sonata, prelude, fantasy, study, impromptu, rhapsody etc. The images vary, as you'd expect. Quite often, without thinking about it at all, I imagine I'm the composer sitting at the keyboard writing the piece. (Which probably explains why I often sound as if I'm making it up as I go along!). But at other times, I imagine myself in eg. a 19th century central European outdoors scene. I do this particularly with Schubert.

But I'm not the only one to do this sort of thing, it seems. Let me quote an anecdote from the liner notes (author R. D. Darrell) to a recording I have of Rachmaninoff’s piano music: "It is likely that the composer had in mind some kind of “program” or “story” or scene for most if not all of these preludes [the 13 Preludes, Op.32] – as indeed he may have had for most of his works in all forms. But if so, he was more than usually careful to keep his own notions private so that listeners would be free to create their own imagery if they felt any were appropriate. In one instance, though, Rachmaninoff was amazed when another pianist, Benno Moiseiwitsch (whose performance of the B minor prelude, Op.32/10 he had highly admired), remarked that he, Moiseiwitsch, always thought of a certain painting whenever he played this piece – a painting, Arnold Böcklin’s "The Return", which the composer was startled into confessing was exactly what he had attempted to evoke in music".

So, while this is admittedly very wide of the mark in relation to imagining what unseen people might look like, it seems that mental images can sometimes be communicated in unexpected ways. JackofOz 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with synesthesia features composers Duke Ellington, Ligeti, Liszt, Messiaen, Rimsky-Korsakov, and a special mentioning of Scriabin. What Jack is describing does indeed seem to be common among musical people (listeners included). It's not the exact same thing and probably not as direct, neurologically, as synesthesia, of course, but turning musical color, texture, and drama into visual equivalents seems related, and can feel very real. For a seemingly more blunt, yet obviously effective example, harpist and composer Andreas Vollenweider sketched colored sequences of changing landscapes across the score sheets as a first draft for his composition Live at Sunset (performed with Sinfonia Varsovia, a Polish orchestra). ---Sluzzelin talk 09:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although arguably divergent from the original question, fascinating and inspiring insights nonetheless. On that basis alone you have my unqualified admiration and support. Uhm .. oh yeah ... permission granted ;-P. dr.ef.tymac 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many different types of libraries are there in New Zealand?

Hello, I would like to know about the different types of libraries there are in New Zealand. Also it would be nice if there are links to different Wikipedia articles about the different types of libraries.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.81.121 (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As far as I know there's only one type of library, which is ran by local city councils. Maybe you want to be more specific? --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is also the national library in Wellington. And universities and the like also have their own libraries (these tend to be open to the general public but you will need to pay to join if not a student or staff). Some museums, councils and CRIs and other organisations also have their own internal libraries which are not generally open to the general public. But the library that is probably of most interest to average NZer is probably their local library run by their local council Nil Einne 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by type, and what do you mean by library? Any collection of books is a library. As in most countries, there are public libraries run by the local government department, and private libraries run by individuals and organisations, many of them specialising in any of a wide variety of subjects, but there is no record of these.--Shantavira 08:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I can't address the New Zealand specific portion of the question, but our library article does indeed contain a section on types of libraries, with links to other Wikipedia articles. --LarryMac 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess one-libraries with books in

What about toy libraries? Aaadddaaammm 22:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball team vs team overall record: chicago cubs vs arizona diamondbacks

lifetime / overall record between chicago cubs and arizona diamondbacks since 1998 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pjbaker (talk • contribs) 05:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know if this helps at all, but since the year 2002 the Chicago Cubs hold a record of 12-19 vs. the Arizona Diamondbacks. ~ cl525

A Cub,Mark Grace hit the first homerun into the pool.hotclaws**== 11:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About dreams

I always pondered on a question that started as a joke I heard somewhere, but then I realized it had something to it...

If a person is born blind, can he visualize any imagery in his dreams? Does he "see" anything? Or are his dreams based on his other senses. Next, if a person goes blind while he is under 1 year of age (but is not born blind), can he conceive imagery in dreams? What about the other senses?

If anyone did any research on this, it might explain some of the mystery behind dreams in general. Does anybody here know of such a study?

Thanks, Danielsavoiu 08:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, there are many studies. [2] [3]. They seem to indicate that people born blind do not experience visual imagery in dreams, and that the chance that they will experience it depends on when they became blind (with little chance if lost before 5). Vision in dreams also decreases as time passes from when the person became blind. Other senses kick in though; touch, smell, taste, sound, etc. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help me with this odd facts trivia

1.doing this is believed to improve your health.what 2.what used to occurr at 180 occurs at 121 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.24.124.23 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

1. Far far too many possible answers. -- mattb 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are two different clues for the same answer. However, I have no clue as to what the answer is... JoshHolloway 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty cryptic questions. Maybe the cutoff for abnormal reading of some medical test such as blood sugar after a meal, which got lowered in more modern diagnosis manuals? [4] versus [5] (Note that this does not constitute medical advice.) Or, maybe, the IQ considered necessary to answer questions on the RefDesk. Edison 23:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing that occurs at 121 is that you win your game of cribbage. But I doubt there was ever a version where 180 was a win. --Anonymous, April 24, 2007, 01:45 (UTC).

I wonder if it's high blood pressure. Maybe the cut-off point for high systolic bp used to be 180, and now it's 121? --Charlene 09:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember that the second one is the angle of the erection which is less "at attention" with age.hotclaws**== 11:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

121 (number) and 180 (number) might help. Or not. jnestorius^(talk) 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration of North America

A couple years ago i read about an area that i think was in Wyoming, that was not claimed by Spain, France, or Britain. It Was simply overlooked and annexed by the U.S. The residents celebrate something like a "Freedom day" or something once/year. What is the name of this area, and where is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.54.61.158 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure of a Wyoming city that celebrates a "freedom day". The history of Wyoming Territory is rather complex. Apparently, everything in Wyoming east of the continental divide was part of the Louisiana Purchase, although the exact western boundary was never specified in the treaty because France didn't want to provoke anything with Spain. The map Image:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions.png shows that other parts of Wyoming were part of the Republic of Texas (which broke away from Mexico) and was annexed in 1845), the Mexican Cession (from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848), and the Oregon Country (claimed jointly by the United States and Great Britain, resolved in 1846 with the Oregon Treaty, and organized as Oregon Territory in 1848). Further organizations of territories and then states resulted in Wyoming having its current borders. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The linked map neatly shows all of the present-day United States as part of a territory previously claimed by a European power, but there is in fact a small area that might have been considered outside of the European claims. This is Wyoming's Great Divide Basin. The Louisiana Purchase extended from the Mississippi River to the Continental Divide. New Spain or Mexico consisted of the areas draining to the Gulf of Mexico or to the Pacific west of the Continental Divide and south of the 42nd Parallel. These claims did not consider that there might be an area within the Continental Divide, but the Great Divide Basin occupies such a position. The linked map shows the basin as part of the original Louisiana Purchase. According to the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819, an area south of the 42nd Parallel without regard to drainage, including part of the Great Divide Basin, was assigned to Spain. However, part of the basin lies north of the 42nd Parallel, and this might conceivably be considered outside of territory gained through the Louisiana Purchase or the Mexican Cession. However, U.S. territories surrounded the Great Divide Basin, and the United States construed it as part of the Louisiana Purchase (as shown in the map linked above). The only settlement of any size in the Basin is Wamsutter, Wyoming. I can find no evidence that it celebrates anything like a "freedom day". Marco polo 01:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent answer, Marco. StuRat 03:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Base price of a british penny

Okay so the US cent is nearly costing more than a penny in raw materials to make. Anyone know how much the copper plated steel it takes to make a UK penny costs? Capuchin 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Royal Mint's web site FAQ:

Q7. How much does it cost to make coins?
The cost of producing United Kingdom coins varies according to the specification of each denomination. The value of metal in each coin accounts for a large part of the total cost, but it is also necessary to take into consideration the broader costs of the manufacturing process. These vary according to the complexity of the coin.
The Royal Mint does not reveal exactly how much it costs to make specific coins as such information could be used to its competitors' advantage.

Dismas|^(talk) 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huuh? What competitors? Clarityfiend 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Mint is a business that manufactures coins for over 100 countries. There are lots of other mints, and no doubt some of them would also like that business.--Shantavira 07:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Royal Mint Annual Report 2005-06: Internationally, sixtyone countries chose the Royal Mint as their supplier for coins and blanks which secured for the Mint roughly 15% of the global market. This aspect of the Mint’s activities remains important but over the course of the last five years there has been volatility throughout the world in capacity and pricing, sometimes operating to the Mint’s advantage but often acting against its commercial interests. The trend of government-supported national mints seeking to establish for themselves market share in the area of coins and ready-for-striking blanks is likely to remain an important factor affecting market dynamics for some years. ... One of the challenges for the future is to ensure that the Mint understands the singular position it occupies as an historic national institution and also a modern business looking to compete in traditional manufacturing sectors and commercial collector markets. Gandalf61 09:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of this, it was in the news a while ago that if the UK 2p coin was still made entirely of copper then it would be worth more for its metal content than its face value. Of course, that's why they switched to using steel back in '92. Algebraist 09:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British two pence coin states that in May of last year the pre-'92 coins were worth 3p! Crazy! 213.48.15.234 09:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that crazy - they don't wear out very quickly - they can certainly be expected to last 50 years. I recall reading that a US $1 bill costs 14c to make - but it only lasts about 9 months - over 50 years, the cost of replacing $1 worth of bills is $7. By comparison, 3p for a 2p coin over 50 years is a good deal! SteveBaker 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing happened with Canadian quarters a while back. The silver was worth more than face value. Clarityfiend 22:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the BEP says that it's actually 21 months and $0.057 per $1 bill. :) kmccoy (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whereas 1797 2p coins were solid copper and weigh 2oz.

Anyone trying to sell you a 1797 2p coin is a con artist. Maybe a 2d coin... £sd. Skittle 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... How much would it cost you to buy the amount of steel and copper that's in a one penny coin then? Anyone get an estimate? I reckon easily under 0.5p.

The "protein diet"

I overheard a conversation a while back about some protein diet that supposedly worked wonders... It was something about a 7day eating plan that involved alot of eggs, spinich an other gross stuff. Is there anyone who might be able to help me find this specific diet?

Thank you...

Nicky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickyleo (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Atkins Nutritional Approach? It espouses a diet low in carbs and high in protein. Dismas|^(talk) 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any diet of value will made up exclusively of foods that you find very very tasty. The thing is, part of that taste is how a food makes you feel afterward. Trans fats don't taste of anything, but will shut you down about 15 minutes after eating them. Being a smart eater requires noting how foods make you feel. Vranak

Vranak: What does "Trans fats don't taste of anything, but will shut you down about 15 minutes after eating them." mean? Bielle 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means you wouldn't want to eat them before a marathon. Vranak

I think he means some people's blood sugar goes down enough to make them feel tired or weak after consuming calories in a certain time period. Trans fatty acids may increase the risk of coronary heart disease, and there is another "food police alarm" going on right now. [Mαc Δαvιs] ❖ 03:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a crank diet like this called the Hollywood diet.It consisited of 9 eggs every other day and mostly spinach and lemon on the alternate days.A friend of mine went on it and became extremely ill.hotclaws**== 11:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Civilian Employee

What is the definition of a federal civilian employee?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.145.206 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

One that works for the federal government of whatever country but is not a member of the military, i.e. a civilian. In the U.S. such people would work for the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Congress, the United States Senate, even the President's secretary would be a federal civilian employee. Dismas|^(talk) 21:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, even military research civilian who work on military bases are federal civilian employees, but they aren't really a member of the military. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

How do I make pictures larger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Redd (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(http://homokaasu.org/rasterbator/faq.gas) could be what you need. There is software that exists that allows you to 'scale up' the size of your photo. An important factor to remember is that whilst quality may degrade, larger photos/pictures are most often viewed from a further distance, this should low the dpi required (or something like that). Not sure of the techncial details but something to do with viewing distance. ny156uk 23:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And important thing to consider is whether it's necessary to interpolate an image. Depending on the printer software, you may or may not get better results with not using an external tool to interpolate. This is of course presuming your interpolating to print Nil Einne 00:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

magnifying glass

Photoshop allows excellent image enlargement and modification, including restoration of damage or removal of distracting elements in the photo. If it is a physical picture, you need to scan it into the computer first. I have also had good success making a copy negative of the picture with a view camera onto 4x5 inch film, then using a photographic enlarger to make a large print of it. Edison 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mote that all the responses so far assume you have a digital pic, in which case the Computer Ref desk would be appropriate. For a regular photograph, take the negatives to a photo shop and they can enlarge them for you. StuRat 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stu: Please re-read the previous post. The last method works well on non-digital and even non-photographic pictures. And your suggestion is a good one, since I have used the machine at a photo center to enlarge and duplicate photos before I had a pro-uality scanner and printer. Edison 21:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was scanning and saw "Photoshop" and took that to mean you were assuming a digipic. StuRat 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THE STATE OF GEORGIA

WHERE WOULD I FIND INFORMATION ON A LIST OF GEORGIA'S FIRSTS? I'VE BEEN TO GOOGLE ASK AND DOG PILE. THEY DIRECT ME TO EBAY. I DON'T WANT TO BUY ANYTHING I'M LOOKING FOR INFORMATION. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.16.183 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Georgia_(U.S._state)#History is probably a good place to start--VectorPotential^Talk 23:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what firsts are you talking about? bibliomaniac 1 5 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]