Miscellaneous desk
< August 4	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 6 >

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.

August 5

Steerable front wheels on four-wheel wagon, when first used

At what time and place in history did the invention of steerable front wheels on four-wheel wagons first appear. That is, a vehicle where the tracking direction of the front wheels was capable of rotating or swiveling, in relation to the tracking direction of the rear wheels, such that the vehicle was capable of turning along a curved path with the inside wheels describing a smaller radius curve than the outside wheels. Such an invention would probably have first manifested itself in a pivoting front axle.

In old illustrations and carved reliefs, wagons from Roman times appear to have front and rear axles in a fixed parallel relationship, which would have made turning corners and maneuvering difficult--and which may explain why chariots and two-wheel carts seem to have predominated over four-wheel vehicles for so much of early human history.

Illustrations are not always drawn from life, so artists might have taken liberties and incorrectly showed four wheeled wagons with no provision for the front axle to pivot for turning corners. Turning a sharp corner with such a wagon would have required dragging the wheels sideways at enormous effort. Edison 14:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is obviously so, Edison, but let me ask you . . . At what time and place in history did the invention of steerable front wheels on four-wheel wagons first appear? Can you cite any reliable source, such as illustrations, reliefs, or artifacts, establishing a place and date of use of steerable front wheels on a four-wheel wagon, either from the Roman Empire era or other early times and places in history?

TI-89 Tit.

What is KBDPRGM 1-3 and KBDPRGM 4-6 and HOMEDATA and SYSDATA? You can see them all by pushing diamond and then EE.

Although I haven't a clue as to what this is about, and I don't have any spare diamonds on which to test the statement, I suspect the question may belong on the computer desk. Bielle 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is referring to the Texas Instruments TI-89 graphing calculator. The functions asked about are described in the calculator's guidebook. The Texas Instruments website has a downloadable pdf version.—WAvegetarian (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA and mod chipping

You know the recent rash of dozens of arrests of gaming console mod chippers? Apparently this is illegal because sony, nintendo, and microsoft have billions and billions of dollars to stuff in police/judge's pockets... but why is it illegal to make custom hardware for your gaming consoles? It's not like it's under license from those companies- it's your hardware! My question is- is it now also illegal to make custom hardware for my computer? If I wanted to design a simple video card with a bit of vram to hold the screen buffer, would that be illegal? How about a little circuit on the network card that listens for Windows trying to activate and immediately sends back an affirmative response? Is that illegal? It's just a bit of hardware that you're putting in a computer you own. That computer happens to be running some software designed by microsoft and that software needs to get that affirmative signal in order for it to be useful. Have US lawmakers actually regulated what you can do with your own computer? Shouldn't you have the freedom to flip whatever bits you want in your own memory even if that results in (in abstract) vista being activated? --⁪froth^t 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'illegalacy' is in the piracy and copyright violation - calm down - if you don't buy/play/make pirated games the worse thing you can do is void your warranty. Look at it this way it's not illegal to possess a lathe but if the sole reason you have it is to manufacture barrells for illegal firearms then you can expec to be arrested if discovered. Does that explain?83.100.183.144 11:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, some of the recent legal practice in the area of intellectual property control for consumer electronics does smell a lot like making that lathe illegal. If a tool is used primarily to circumvent copy-protection controls, it is illegal under the DMCA to possess that tool at all, whether you use it to circumvent copy protection or not. Several of the large copyright holders, and many large institutions in their thrall, are attempting to shut down all P2P networks, period, even though P2P is obviously useful for distributing all sorts of data other than copyrighted content. I'm not sure what the legal status of region codes is, but they're another reason why consumers want to use modded hardware, and vendors don't want them to. The TCPA, if/when it's ever fully implemented, will drastically control the kinds of software you'll be able to run on your own computer. Etc.

User:Froth is unfortunately correct: in the eyes of several large corporations and the lawmakers they've bought, you do not have anything like full control over the hardware you own; their business models require that they retain lots of their own little hooks that you can't touch.

"Do not attempt to adjust your set. WE are controlling transmission. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical."

—Steve Summit (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tragic situation. In 1982 companies tried to sell machines based on programmability (C64, spectrum etc) as well as being able to play games, do home accounts... Nowadays we are not allowed to program and the games industry is in a sorry old state - I see a connection.83.100.183.144 15:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a tragic situation - and one which I believe will come to cripple high-tech innovation in years to come in the US and in other countries that have laws similar to the DMCA. The ability to tinker with things - is a major feature of what makes for innovative minds. Most scientists, engineers, technologists today grew up in an environment where they were encouraged to experiment - with toys like Meccano (aka Erector set), Lego, etc - or with computers like the Sinclair range or the Vic-20/Commadore-64 kind where programming of the machine was exposed and encouraged. In our modern world, it's getting harder and harder to do that. Modern PC's and Mac's cannot be programmed without installing all sorts of new software - and simple programming environments that would allow children and teens to 'play' pretty much don't exist.

When you look at game consoles, the situation is even worse - they are designed explicitly to be impenetrable to reprogramming. This is a necessary thing for consoles because of the bizarre business model they are sold under. When you buy a game console, the manufacturer is almost always selling to you either at cost - or below cost. They make a significant loss on every one they sell. Hence, the only way for them to make money is to collect revenue from people writing games for those consoles - which makes it imperative that they find ways to prevent just anyone from writing and running software for those machines. If anyone could write (and presumably, sell) games for those machines - without paying a "tax" back to the console manufacturer - then they would go out of business in short order. Game players would be better served if their console hardware cost a couple of hundred bucks more than it does right now so that the console manufacturer could make a healthy profit on them - and the games could be written by anyone and compete on price without the "tax". This would result in games that were perhaps half the price they are now - and consoles that were perhaps 50% more expensive. So for (say) the XBox 360, instead of paying $400 for the console and $60 for each game, you'd be paying $600 for the console and $30 for each game. If you planned to buy 7 or more games over the life of your console - you'd be better off.

But people are not smart about this kind of thing - they are highly irrational creatures and will buy whichever console is cheapest without regard for the subsequent price of games. That makes it impossible for a console manufacturer to enter the scene with a more expensive product with the same level of technology - even if the games for it will be dirt cheap and the machine could be open to reprogramming. We see this everywhere nowadays. Ink Jet printers that cost $80 - but for which a replacement ink cartridge costs $50 when in reality, the printer should cost $200 and the ink cartridges $15...it's insane!

But given that's how the markets work, the companies that do business in them must find a way to prevent (for example) OpenSourced games on game consoles - or (equally) cheap knock-off print cartridges. The DMCA provides a means for them to enforce both things (Printers now have a code stored in the ink cartridge that the printer checks before it'll print. If someone else wants to make a cartridge that's compatible with the printer, they have to break the code that the 'official' cartridges use - but that's illegal because of the DMCA.) If it were possible to buy a car that only ran on special $10 per gallon gasoline - but which cost only $5,000 - do you think people would buy it?

Copyright violation is a serious problem. People who make content (be it music, games, moview, books, paintings) need to have a way to make a profit - and if the media they work in is easily copied (which it is) - then there needs to be some way to protect their income. The copyright laws give them plenty of protection - they simply are not adequately policed. Hence we end up with ridiculous laws like DMCA.

I predict that this kind of behavior will come back to haunt us in future generations as we increasingly find that not only is the outsourcing of production a major problem - but also outsourcing of design capability and technological know-how - because our children will have been spoon-fed pre-written software, Lego sets that have parts that pretty much only let you build what's on the box lid, that kind of thing. Attentive parents need to work hard to give the kids the 'toys' they need to learn what they'll need to know over the next 50 years. SteveBaker 22:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft claim to have patly developed Microsoft XNA to address this (though, of course, a cynic might say it is just a way to squeeze more money out of their console buy cutting costs for developers). Rockpocket 05:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a forum, or a soapbox. Yes, I'm sure lots of people would like to throw their hats into the ring here. The ONLY thing that needs to be said is that no, modifying hardware is perfectly legal, it's piracy that is illegal. End of thread. --L-- 02:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately that's not your decision to make. My original question still hasn't been answered. Is it actually illegal to create hardware that interfaces with game consoles, or were those people arrested because of their connection with the piracy industry? --⁪froth^t 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

modifying hardware is perfectly legal, it's piracy that is illegal --L-- 04:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except in some countries where it is considered illegal to circumvent copy protection systems [1] (and there is no need to shout, we are sitting right next to you.) Rockpocket 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying hardware is legal; selling mod chips is illegal (but owning them is legal). Selling pirated games is, of course, illegal. Downloading and owning them is also illegal. It is legal to make a copy of any game you have owned, but only for as long as you own it. Neil ╦ 12:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give legal advice, of course, but if the hardware you modified was part of a copy-protection scheme, and if the manufacturer decided to call you on it, you would probably have a very long, difficult, and expen$ive time convincing them that what you did was legal.

Buried in Steve Baker's long answer above is the essential key to the mod chip issue: the game console manufacturers have adopted the razor blade marketing tactic. They sell game consoles at little or no (or negative!) profit; their profit (which, for a corporation, is their life) absolutely requires you to buy expensive games from them or their licensed vendors. If you can run any old cheap game on that console, or (heaven forbid!) write your own, their business model collapses.

I'm not saying I condone this business model; personally I think it's folly. But you have to understand it to understand why the game console manufacturers are so strenuously against mod chips, and why they try -- with some success -- to get those chips and indeed any modifications branded as "illegal".

As Bruce Schneier has written:

The entertainment companies are willing to... destroy your privacy, have general-purpose computers declared illegal, and exercise special vigilante police powers that no one else has... just to make sure that no one watches "The Little Mermaid" without paying for it. They're trying to invent a new crime: interference with a business model.

[Crypto-Gram Newsletter, August 15, 2002]

—Steve Summit (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing minor marks to a varnished mahogany surface

oh dear. while trying to get a biro pen to work, I did not realize in time that there was only one sheet of paper between the pen and the surface of a varnished mahogany table. So, this left a little bit of a scribble mark (the kind of scribble you get when tryign to get a biro to work by drawing circley things over and over). It's a small, faint mark and not visible to the naked eye. It is obvious though if you examine it from a couple inches a way, or if you shine a light over it. Still, the surface was pristine before, and I was wondering what is the best way to restore it. I know that there are furniture restorers who will fix deep scratches, chipping, holes etc. but was wondering it there was a simpler way to go about this which would not involving hiring out experts. This not something I would describe as a scratch, more a bit of a indentation. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks very much.

In order to get out the indentation, you might try applying moist heat.

HOWEVER... This is likely to damage the varnish, or French polish, or whatever finish you have on the table.SaundersW 12:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. thanks. so apply some moist heat (a hot damp cloth?) and then maybe revarnish?

Many folk remedies for removing indentations from wood, such as moist heat, definitely require refinishing the entire surface afterwards. Then it may not match the rest of the piece. Moisture will may raise the grain, requiring sanding, which is not an option if the piece is veneered rather than solid wood. Living with it may be the best option. There is unlikely to be any remedy you can apply to one small area of a varnished, shellac'd or lacquered piece of furniture which won't leave more of an eyesore than you started with. Edison 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use a lower-wattage lightbulb in that room. :) --TotoBaggins 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery License Plate

In California, on Google Street view, I found a car with a license plate which I have not seen before. I looked at photos of license plates from every state, but none looked like it except this 1963 California plate (but it doesn't match the digit-letter numbering). Can you identify the plate? LINK.--Codell^Talk 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a California plate in the old black-and-yellow "1963" style. You still see those around fairly regularly; I thought the five numbers plus a letter sequence was a commercial plate, but I could be wrong. Here's another example -- [2] Antandrus (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a truck plate. Corvus cornix 00:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying that for me, but I don't understand one thing. It's legal to use old plates in California?--Codell^Talk 07:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes--you can use them as long as they were originally issued to you for the same car (for 1963 and newer). They can neither change cars nor owners. In practice you won't see them all that often: most cars don't last 40+ years with only one owner. There is a separate law for pre-1963 plates which can be issued for antique cars, and can be transferred if the number is "clear", i.e. not found in the Department of Motor Vehicles database. Antandrus (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay‼--Codell^Talk 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4/5/6 point perspective

Where can I find good resources for perspective drawing? I've tried googling but nothing really useful comes up.

Francis D.K. Ching's books are the standard resource for perspective drawing; one, two and three point perspective,any good library will have one of them, but what do you mean by 4/5/6 point? Mhicaoidh 12:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want a summary of 1/2/3/4/5/6 point perspective, this [3] page has a good short summary with an example picture. You can pretty much see how they all work from just that. I don't know of any sites that give you thorough step by step instructions. 204.193.196.6 12:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In mathematical terms, 1,2,4 and 5 point perspective are incorrect - they apply perspective in one or two axes only - and the real world doesn't work like that. However, they may (of course) be applied to deliberately distort something oddly for artistic reasons - or just to simplify the drawing process where realism isn't the number one goal. The difference between 1,2,3 point perspective and 4,5,6 point is to do with spherical versus planar projections. Ideally - if the final picture is being viewed on a flat surface - then again, mathematically, 3 point perspective is "correct". 6 point perspective produces the same effect as a 'fish eye' lens on a camera - and it only looks undistorted if you are painting onto a curved surface. However, (as a computer graphics person) I find all of the formal methods used my artists a bit lacking. If, for example, you tried to use 3 point perspective to draw a chessboard whose front edge was parallel to the frame of the painting - at least one of the vanishin points would have to be infinitely far away on either the left or right sides of the paper. If you wish to use any of the 'vanishing point' approaches to draw two cubes that are not parallel to each other - then each cube needs its own set of vanishing points - and there is little or no guidance as to where they should be placed for a realistic effect. SteveBaker 15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French expression

Can anybody provide a colloquial French expression equivalent to "narrow minded bastard", please?86.197.170.52 13:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

May I suggest you go to our Language Reference Desk - someone there may be able to help. SteveBaker 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, why didn't I think of that!86.200.6.236 16:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

Flooded Village in Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany Area,,,,

Hey, i was going through old pictures of a trip I had taken to Italy, and on the way we had stopped at this town in Italy. I'm not sure what country it was in,,,, might have been austria or italy but the town had been flooded and the only thing left was this clock tower from the church and its still standing there in the water. A few hundred feet away is the cemetery where the stones where used to carry the bodies to the graveyard. If anyone knows the name of the town could they please let me know?

Thanks --Devol4 17:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean flooded deliberately? Like to create a reservoir? Sounds as though you need to sit down with a good map. Do any of the towns in Category:Ghost towns in Europe look likely?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Lake Resia? Lupo 08:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Term for those little cardboard pieces you put under your drinks

You know, at some restaurants/bars, when they serve you a cold drink they place it on a little cardboard or paper thingy so that the condensation doesn't form a messy puddle under your glass. Does anyone know what they're called? Help, Wikipedia! - 219.95.182.113 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coasters. HYENASTE 20:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! - 219.95.182.113 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are under a pint of beer, then they are beer mats. DuncanHill 20:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also perhaps Doily, though they aren't cardboard that i've ever seen of. ny156uk 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "beer mat is a coaster" and Doilies are for placing under bowls and dishes. Lock in (a):coaster, thanks Eddie. Aaadddaaammm 05:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A doily is either paper or fine material, linen probably. Whatever, the purpose is to prevent wet items damaging the furniture.86.202.28.218 16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)DT[reply]

If you put weels under a coaster then do you get a roller coaster? DirkvdM 09:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Price of building pc vs buying prebuilt

I've heard conflicting answers. What is actually true. And, if buying prebuilt is scheaper then how do companies profit.

For a bog standard 'intel' PC buying prebuilt is pretty cheap - usually includes software and monitors etc. - I doubt you'd be able to beat them.

However such 'bog-standard' computers often don't have the right slots for upgrading eg graphics card.

For higher specifications I'm not sure which is best - but it looks like it gets closer in price for 'gaming machines' when considering pre-built vs home made.

Second question - the companys do business by bulk buying of parts at lower prices than you might expect to pay in shops, and relying on the fact that most people would prefer not to have to build their own machines. economies of scale is one big factor here, amongst others.83.100.183.144 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A prebuilt might be cheaper than a self-built computer if you'd build exactly the same computer. But the point of building it yourself is that you can build the computer that fits your needs - if you know what they are and you know how to satisfy them, of course. DirkvdM 06:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally build my own - but I think a lot depends on what parts you intend to salvage from your old computer. I generally upgrade one component at a time - so I'll swap out the motherboard, RAM and CPU one year - then upgrade graphics, disk drives another. Power supplies, keyboards, mice and monitors get swapped as they break - I'll swap out the case when the next generation of motherboard won't fit into the old one. In a sense, I never buy a new computer - kinda like the Ship of Theseus paradox - theoretically, I have a 1983 PC on my desk even though not one single part dates back that far (well, maybe the power cord)! That approach is certainly cheaper than prebuilt because you aren't ever replacing parts that don't need replacing. If your hard disk isn't full or broken - why upgrade? A DVD drive is a DVD drive - do you ever really need to buy one if the old one hasn't broken? Moreover, when I do upgrade my 'main' desktop machine, the parts I take out are often useful to upgrade my much older 'firewall' machine - or my son's machine - or my 'hot spare' machine (yes, for a family of three, five desksides and three laptops might seem a little excessive). But a lot depends on why you are upgrading. If it's because (please, no!) you want Vista instead of XP - then it's probably cheaper to buy pre-built because people like Dell and Gateway only pay Microsoft a tiny fraction of what a copy of Vista would cost off the shelf. If what you actually need is an entire new computer - then prebuilt is likely to be the way to go. If you just need better graphics or a faster CPU - or if one specific thing has broken - then self-built is by far the best way. SteveBaker 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and then there is the problem that a prefab pc might use non-standard 'standards', meaning you can't properly upgrade later. The Dell article mentions wrongly-wired power cables. I'm not sure if it is only specific brands that do that and which then, though. DirkvdM 06:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it a couple times. The bottom line is that the money you save will never repay you for your time. But you will learn a lot, and you will be able to customize your box more than you could any other way. Think of it as "Linux at a hardware level". --Trovatore 06:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of arguments for buying prebuilt:

It's simpler, and saves time.
You're less likely to break valuable components by misassembling them or frying them with static electricity.
Any hardware faults there may be are more likely to be covered by warranty (and getting the warranty fulfilled may be easier).
The components in a prebuilt system are likely to have been well tested (especially on higher-end systems) and known to be compatible with each other (even if not with anything else).
Since the exact same system is sold to many people, it's likely that others have already experienced any compatibility or other problems you may have with it, and may have already found solutions or workarounds.
For certain applications, such as small and quiet desktop/office PCs, a professionally assembled prebuilt system may involve design features that would require considerable skill to implement in a home-built system.

Of course, there are also arguments for building your own, the foremost among them customizability. Even so, my personal recommendation would be to go for prebuilt unless you have specific reasons for wanting to build your own, and are confident enough in your ability to do it well. Also note that there is a middle road: many computer shops will assemble you a custom system from components you've selected from a list. In some cases, this could combine the advantages of both prebuilt and custom systems; then again, it might end up combining the disadvantages instead. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that last bit once and it cost me several hundred euro more than it would have if I would have done it myself. That's the time factor you and Trovatore mention, except in this case it's a professional's time you're paying for and that will cost you. The next computer I built myself and the time it cost me was figuring out what to buy, to make sure it would all fit together well. After that, assembly was a piece of cake. When it needed upgrading a month ago it cost me much less time and that will only get better in the future, as I build up experience. If you upgrade at least every five years or so (as most people do) then in a lifetime you will do it about ten times or more and in the end it will be worth it, in terms of money saved and the useful knowledge you gain.

In contrast, I opened the Compaq at the place where I work a while ago, to see if I could upgrade it, and was appalled at what I saw. There wasn't even room, nor the cabling, to install a second harddisk. So I would have needed another, proper, computer, to transfer the data from the old to the new hd. These prefabs seem to be specifically designed not to be upgradeable. DirkvdM 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what I found to be the most time-consuming part was figuring out which components simply didn't work, and driving back to Fry's to replace them. I expect that's less likely if you get higher-end components, but that's going to eat away at your dollar savings.

As for the upgrade thing, I don't think that's terribly realistic. My experience is that after three years or so you might as well go for a completely new system as there isn't much that's likely to be worth keeping from your old one. You're going to need new CPU and motherboard, which isn't going to be compatible with your old RAM. You can keep the case, monitor, a few random peripherals, and if you're lucky, your hard drives -- the last is the key point, I suppose, because if you can avoid having to reinstall and reconfigure all your software that's a very significant time savings. --Trovatore 20:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The computer I have at work is similar to yours: there's no wasted space whatsoever, and if I did manage to cram, say, a second harddisk in it, it would probably screw up the airflow. Then again, it's small, quiet and elegant, and does everything I need it to (especially after I swapped the crappy DVD drive with a spare DVD/CD-RW combo drive I had lying around). There's no way I could build such a compact system myself. Conversely, the choose-the-parts-and-we'll-build-it PC my mom got some years ago came in a huge tower case with oversized fans and extra plastic "contouring" around it. Sure, there's plenty of airflow and expansion room, but the case alone takes up a quarter of the table and sounds like a shop vacuum even with fan control and sound absorbing mat. My own home computer is something in between: it's an old prebuilt with quite a lot of parts swapped, but still in the original modestly-sized ATX mini-tower case. It's still bigger and uglier than what I have at work, but with a new CPU fan and PSU and the harddisk mounted with elastic cord in a 5.25" bay, I've at least got the noise down to tolerable (i.e. barely audible) levels. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tower makes more sense on the floor than on the desk. I even use my old 286 as a leg for my digital piano. :) On the floor any noise is also less audible. And anyway, these days it's not very difficult to get all quiet parts. The biggest issue now seeme to be whether your graphics card needs 3d capabilities and therefore a big fan. Ie do you want to play games - I don't. DirkvdM 05:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Clinton

Has hillory gone through menopause? I only want to know because if not, then couldnt her getting all menstrual be dangerous for the country?

At 60, she has probably gone through menopause, but even if she hadn't it wouldn't be a big security threat. People, including presidents, are always under a lot of stress, are probably often quite irritated, are probably often in some sort of pain, and are surrounded by many trusted advisors. If JFK could navigate the Cuban Missile Crisis while on enough pain killers to kill a horse, I'm sure Hillary could manage to negotiate presidential issues while having a period. --24.147.86.187 21:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are (and have been) a number of female women heading up the governments of countries and this hasn't been an issue. Frankly this is quite silly question as obviously women can lead - they do it everyday throughout the world be it in business or government. Interestingly, however, I remember reading some time ago that som research had shown that men have mood-cycles similar to those of women that are often attributed to menstruation (spelling). ny156uk 22:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under severe pressure, even when menstruating, this lady was not for turning. [4] She wasn't called the Iron Lady for nothing, and is generally credited with being among the toughest and most steadfast Western political leaders of the last 50 years or so, both by those who worshipped her and those who hated her. Anyone who is familiar with the Thatcher Government would have little concern about a woman, per se, being a weak leader. Indeed the idea that a woman can not handle such a stressful job due to their sex is pretty outdated (though, of course, should Clinton win her party's nomination, we will hear it implied again and again by her opponents). Rockpocket 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard their periods attract bears. Neil ╦ 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And homosexuals attract sharks, so best not elect one of them either. Rockpocket 20:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Hemispheric Heat Wave

Read all of the articles. Does this appear to be a real first - a Hemispheric Heat Wave ? 205.240.144.180 23:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are heat waves all over Asia, America and Europe going on at the SAME time, thus is this assumption. 205.240.144.180 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could THAT be a sign of "Global Warming" ? 205.240.144.180 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a discussion with yourself? :) DirkvdM 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hemispheric heat wave is not an existing article, so which are all those articles you have read? DirkvdM 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reference to a question dated July 10? (Doesn't seem to have been archived but see this diff).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there truly is a "European heat wave" then the British Euro sceptics must be delighted that there's finally proof that Britain's not in Europe. More like a wash-out than a heatwave. --Dweller 10:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also suggest we're not part of the hemisphere.... Skittle 13:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not part of it, you're in it. Or do I get my linguistics all wrong now? DirkvdM 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I was thinking of 'us' being represented by the land, which would be part of the hemisphere? Meh. Skittle 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placebo

How much would it cost for Placebo to play at my birthday? lol, yes, it's random, but I know other bands have done such things. 86.153.38.184 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than $40,000+. 205.240.144.180 00:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that more than more than 40,000? :) DirkvdM 07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone could hire lookalikes and convince you they're the real thing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, wish I had thought of that answer. :) DirkvdM 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]