Miscellaneous desk
< January 14	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 16 >

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

January 15

person@supanet.???, Unrouteable address

A friend in UK sent me his email address: person@supanet From his viewpoint, I should be able to fill in the rest because it might be well known in UK but I am in Australia and I have no idea of what ??? is. As expected, the email was returned with error message Unrouteable address. Then I searched the internet trying to find out what is the substring ??? in full email address: person@supanet.??? but could not find anything. Be grateful if somebody could help. Thank you in advance. Twma 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you performed your search, but the first match that comes up from a search of "supanet UK" gives supanet.com. BenC7 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have sent again with person@supanet.com Will see what happens. Thank you again. Twma 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe supranet.co.uk or supranet.net.uk (see .uk) --⁪froth^T 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

person@supanet.com: I have not received any error message but my friend(?) did not reply me either. So the case appears to be closed. Thanks. Twma 00:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I were you I would also try <myfriendsname>@supanet.co.uk. --Lambiam ^Talk 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new

i am putting a book together is it ok yo use information from wikipedia .i plan to validate the information with other credible source but i want to use wikipedia as my source

Wikipedia is best to use as a tertiary source. Quoting directly from an article is probably not a good idea, given that it could be incorrect or change at any moment. I'd recommend using Wikipedia to find reliable sources instead of actually using an article itself. .V. (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much agreed - I got an A on a major English paper I did last year because of the sources I was able to find through Wikipedia. This was ironic because my teacher at the time felt that Wikipedia has no reliable sources. V-Man737 02:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is true of any encyclopedia. Wikipedia might be better than other tertiary sources, but encyclopedias are never sources --⁪froth^T 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration / LED

I have two questions:

1.) Is there a celebration planned for when Wikipedia donations reach $1,000,000?

2.) I have several red and white LEDs salvaged from cheap broken 3 volt bicycle flashers that I'm testing. The "flat" should mark the negative or the cathode (k) lead and inside the clear plastic case correspond to the smaller electrode that serves as the "whisker" that touches the positive "seat." Although the white LEDs require nearly 6 volts to light instead of 3 volts the white LEDs follow this "flat" mark for the cathode pattern. This, however, is not true for all of the red LEDs. Some have the negative lead marked with a "flat" and some have the positive lead marked with a flat. If the "flat" is used by the manufacturing equipment to locate the negative lead how could the flat be on the wrong side??? What is going on here? -- 71.100.10.48 02:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flat part of a LED representing the cathode was a standard established before the time of the ancients, well, a long time ago anyway. If you have LEDs where the flat part is on the wrong end, you may simply have examples of very poor quality control. Vespine 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For #1, probably not since IIRC the goal is 1.2 million (1.5?) --⁪froth^T 19:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have used some flashing red leds with the flat on the anode side, so maybe it depends on the brand. 203.109.174.164 06:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What movie is this

I remember watching this movie but cant remember the name. It was about a harvard student who gets his thesis lost, and a homeless person living in the library basement gets it and asks favors for each page...what movie is it?, thx.--Coasttocoast 02:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Honors (IMDb link) — Kieff 03:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identical twins

Please help! Is it possible for a boy and a girl to be identical twins? Many, many thanks.

No. Identical twins are genetically identical, meaning (among other things) they are either both boys or both girls. See Twin for more. Dave6 08:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind also that fraternal twins can be different in gender, and yet (sometimes) look very similar. V-Man737 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This answer refers to the XY sex-determination system) One of Dr. Robert Winston's documentaries featured a pair of identical twins who were different genders; they started as a single male (XY) embryo, but when the zygote split, the Y chromosome for one of the zygotes disappeared, leaving a pair of twins, one of which was XY and the other X, but otherwise identical. Unfortunately, as the girl only had one X chromosomes, lots of rare recessive genetic disorders were expressed. In addtition, occasionally a faulty sperm cell is produced by nondisjunction which contains XY instead of just Y. When this fuses with the X egg cell, an unstable XXY zygote is produced, which then splits into an XY and an XX. Laïka 11:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if it doesn't split, it leads to Klinefelter's syndrome. V-Man737 13:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously, they weren't identical, even though they came from the same fertilized egg. -THB 15:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

love....

okay so heres the deal. im in love with this guy and he says he is in love with me. We have liked each other for about 5 months now. We can not date because of certain issues our families have...lets not even get into them. My mother has not banned me from even speaking to him. They can not be reasoned with to see our side on it. My mother even forced me to call him and tell him it will not work. i still love him and again..he says he still loves me. I sometimes get onto his myspace so i can sent him a message so that my parents cant tap into mine and read it. I went on just a few minutes ago to discover that he has not writen back to me but has sent my/his friend a message saying ..and i quote "please dont tell cat (me)about Emily. I still love her" What do i do? im shaking right now....i can barely type. This is no "oh i love him..blah blah blah" This is true love..the purest of the pure. I can not just let him go. I have been trying for quite some time but i love him too much. please..anyone..what do i do? --Kittycat rox 10:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so it can't provide much help with emotional/love life problems. You could read our articles on star-crossed lovers, love sickness and unrequited love - there might possibly be something in there that helps you. Gandalf61 10:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:IAR to WP:NOR, it is my experience that time has a funny way of causing things to happen the way they should. serendipity aside, Gandalf has a point with where you are in your search for answers. The Ref Desk crew probably won't have a fully satisfactory answer to any relationship question. Take me, for example: If I was good at relationships, I'd be making out right now instead of typing away on the computer. I wouldn't trust my advice if I were you. But I can point you in the direction of some people who feel that they know what they are doing. Sigh. If Google was a woman, I'd be after her like a Wikipedian after references. V-Man737 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applying WP:IAR to the obsession with keeping metacomments off the RD, IMO it's a joke to even try to follow WP:NOR on the RD ;D --⁪froth^T 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to let him go. He has enough respect for you to not want to hurt your feelings, but he's doing another chick now, and you've got to face that. Channel your feelings into anger at him and they'll dissipate. But actually trying to let him go won't work-it's like "don't think about this catchy tune I'm going to play" Good luck. -THB 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the bright side, you'll be choosing your parents' old age home some day. That'll be a good time for revenge, which is a dish best served cold. --Nelson Ricardo 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't do that either. Revenge is a dish best not served. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 18:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, revenge is a dish best served immediately, before it melts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.164.199.58 (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vengeance is mine, says the lord! [1] Just wanted to throw that in there o_o If you want to play God, though, that's a great verse to quote ominously to your parents ([2]) --⁪froth^T 19:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just throw the dish at your parents right now, and save the revenge for later?

what am i suppose to do exactly about th revenge. they know seem to find out everything. i will try this being angry thing. i really do get over things better if i am angry at them. thanks.i understand this is a wikipedia thing but i really have no where else to go. No one knows how to help me and i really have no one to talk to about it. so it sits. bottled up inside me. Yes. i think anger might do the trick. If i am to angry at him i will be tempted to even want to talk to him. --Kittycat rox 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about revenge. While your parents shouldn't be meddling with your love affairs, it will do you no good to retaliate. Projecting your anxiety as anger over him is a pretty good strategy because, hey, you have good reasons for that. But also, if he's already with some other girl, that'd mean your trust and feelings about the depth of this love you had with him were wrong and inaccurate all along, so there's really not so much on the stake after all. Move on, there's more (a lot, lot more) in life than "love" and personal relationships. Keep yourself busy with those other things instead and treat any love you find as a bonus. — Kieff 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being angry is a good way to get rid of those feelings, but don't make it go too far. Also, I have a friend who tried ignoring the guy she liked, and he ended up wanting to talk to her more, so that could work. As for your parents, they shouldn't be in control of your love life, unless the guys a psychopath. -Dixie48 23:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franking

Why is franking, the practice of companies stamping their mail with a machine, called franking? I've looked it up and can find no reason for the name. 212.240.35.42 14:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It comes "frank" as an adjective, meaning free. A franked letter is "free from obligation in respect of payments or other conditions; free of charge; unconditional" (OED). BTW, this question would have been better asked at the language reference desk. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that it was derived from Italian "porto franco", free of charge for receiver due to pre-payment by sender. 惑乱分からん 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it also applies to congressmen; they have "franking privileges" which allows them to send US mail for free. --⁪froth^T 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "["frank"] acquired the sense of "free" because in Frankish Gaul full freedom was possessed only by those belonging to, or adopted into, the dominant people". -- Necrothesp 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser Key of Solomon

Having read these, it would seem to me that they are a collection of spells, hard to do, but spells, that could theoretically be done. What I wish to know, is has any one tried to do these in modern times, other than Alastair crowley, and if so, what were the out comes? Did they conjure up deamons and if so what happened? What did they have to say ect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please don't post the same question multiple times. Rmhermen 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, What did they have to say ect? is fun, but Why did they have to say ect? looks funnier. -- DLL ^{.. T} 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC) *They say "ect"to conjure ectoplasm(hotclaws**== 18:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Watches. Time Always Set At 10:00 10:00

You'll notice when ever a watch is displayed the hands are set to read 10:00 10:00. The watch you display with your archive button is set at 10 10.

66.41.244.168 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it this is supposed to be something to do with allowing the 'company logo' of the watch to be seen and also because the time is quite distinctive. I've also heard it looks like a 'smile' and thus is a positive act too. Look at the discussion page of watches for more. It is interesting that even photos of digital-watches seem to often follow this trend (though I would add that both 1 and 0 on a digital watch are the best numbers to show off the rather simple-font that most digital watches use - 5s and 4s look a little 'ugly' for instance). ny156uk 18:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC

See the Straight Dope on the topic. -THB 20:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we have an article on this. Can't find it anywhere, though. — Kieff 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered this coming up before on the RDs, and had a look back - found the old question here. Kieff is right, we did have an article on it, but unfortunately it's been deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/10:08. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a bit of time looking for it, too, because I thought there was an article on it. Chalk another one up for the deletionists. The discussion on the deletion was particularly inane. -THB 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I have no clue as to THB's comment having anything to do with "Watches. Time Always Set At..." --hydnjo talk 01:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Doesn't contain a single verifiable fact is inane? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(There is a constant tension between the folks who think that this cyberspace encyclopedia can contain essentially all information about everything (the inclusionists) and the folks who think it should only contain the information that they deem necessary (the deletionists). Atlant 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And you're an admin? You know, of course, that the so-called "deletionists" do not believe any such thing. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just call me wrong, you could explain why you believe I'm wrong. But please note that I did link to both of the relevant articles so that anyone who chose not to believe me could read up on this for themselves.

Atlant 17:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when I designed the image, I was indeed thinking of 10:08. I was just wondering whether anyone would notice. Obviously they did! It just makes the image look more "clocky"; having it at 2:30, which I was originally going to chose for some reason which I have forgotten, didn't look as good. Laïka 16:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I remember the reason - it is because "tooth hurty" is the time you should go to the dentist. V-Man737 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At what times are the angles of the hands to the vertical equal (but opposite)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

U.S. Political Parties

Is there a party in the U.S. that supports punishment of gays, but is not based on religion? --216.164.199.58 19:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to help us understand your question more clearly, could you please cite an example of a party in the U.S. that supports punishment of gays, that is based on religion. --hydnjo talk 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does giving an example allow you to understand my question more clearly? I want to know, out of all non-religious U.S. parties, are there any that support punishment of gays.--216.164.199.58 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the problem with that question is the "supports punishment of gays". By phrasing it like that you suggest that you are right, and others are wrong. Also, generally most people don't subscribe to punishing people because they have different philisophical views. So, people reading the question might form a negative opinion of you.

A better way to phrase might be "I am philisophically opposed to sodomy. Are there non-religious based political parties that have similar views?"

Supposed you had phrased it "punishment of blacks", "punishment of women", or "punishment of jews"? When you could say "supports white supremicism", "against women's rights" or "supports anti-semitism"? Phrasing it like you did, or like you might have here, makes you sound like a closed minded bigot, who wants to harm people to force them to adhere to your philisophical beliefs. I'm sure that isn't your intention. Atom 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some extreme right party... 惑乱分からん 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

216.164... , you have now presented your question quite differently by paraphrasing your original question. Please restate your question, as best you can, so that we may understand your question more clearly. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He never said that there are parties based on religion that support punishment of gays. He was only asking whether there are any that aren't based on religion and support punishment of gays. Is the KKK a registered political party? If so, my money's on them --⁪froth^T 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atom, asking someone to rephrase their question to meet the answerer's preconceptions is fraught with pitfalls. Sodomy is not a practice exclusively associated with homosexuals; many heterosexual people also do this. Many male homosexuals practise sodomy only rarely, or never. The vast majority of female homosexuals have nothing whatever to do with it. JackofOz 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course I know all that. The purpose is for him to get it. It seems likely that his prejudice is religious in origin. The religious reference is based on sodomy, not "gays". The point that anal sex is practiced by heterosexuals (well, primarily by heterosexuals) is indeed another element that I hoped would occur to him by the example. And if he does not have that conception, then the example still serves quite well to guide him on reqording, even if it is not precisely what he mean't. Atom 02:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if the intent is the noble one of pointing the questioner in the right direction, why do you point him in the direction of a stereotype that you've just acknowledged you know is false? That may not have been in the questioner's mind at all. He said at the outside that the punishment he's seeking information about is not based on religion, so I see no evidence that this question is about sodomy. The prohibition on same-sex couples (including lesbians) being able to marry in the US (and most other places) seems punishment enough for gay people, but no lawmaker has ever suggested (to my knowledge) that all gay people do is practise sodomy 24/7. JackofOz 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say his reasons were not religious, he said he wanted to find a political party that was not religious based. The example he gave, like mine, are stereotypes, like his own, that are considered to be unreasonable discrimination, the same, not different. Why would anyone want to "punish" gays at all? His objection is likely sodomy based, as that is the objection of 99% of all people who want to discriminate against gays. I did not suggest that their reasoning for discriminating aganst gays made sense. It obviously doesn't. If it did, they would discriminate against heterosexuals too (since most sodomy is by heterosexuals, not homosexuals). Their agendum is based on hatred toward homosexuals, and their reasoning is most commonly biblical, based on their misperception that homosexuals are "sodomites" described in the bible. Religion isn't based on rational logic, and so that is not their strong suite. They have faith that gay people are immoral, and that is enough reason to castigate, disparage and persecute. A cursory reading of leviticus would show any christian a dozen other areas as bad or worse than sodomy. For instance adulterers, or those who eat pork. Clearly if conservative christianity did not have a common enemy to fight against, they would fight against the differences they between themselves instead. Atom 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a lot of that. But for the life of me I could not make head or tail out of your 2nd sentence ("The example he gave ..."). He didn't give an example in the original question, and when asked to provide one, he pointedly refused to do so. JackofOz 00:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of party would be extremely authorotarian. I would start at American Political Parties and work from there. In a very lazy way I would look for parties with 'national', 'workers', 'traditional', 'populist' that sort of thing - these are parties that are likely to have less mainstream views. It is not a case of this being an issue of the extreme-right (always a problem with politics - anything authorotarian is labelled as right-wing), it is an issue of civil-liberties. I'm not sure how many would be non-religious but the above link is a good place to start I guess. ny156uk 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think his question was rhetorical, primarily, as he asked earlier why people felt that his questions were trollish, or innapropriate. If it is a genuine question, then a good source might be American Nazi Party, or Aryan Nations.

Yes, there is: the Republican Party (United States) wants to punish homosexuals by denying them the hundreds of basic rights that come with the marriage contract. The "president", George W. Bush, even proposed a constitutional amendment depriving homosexuals of these rights. -THB 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's question asks about the opposition that is not based on religion. I believe that the Republican party's position is "faith based". --hydnjo talk 20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think virtually all opposition to gay rights is now religiously motivated, since all non-religious motives for institutional homophobia have basically been discredited. It was once regarded as a mental illness, but this is no longer the case. Mainstream medicine and psychology can no longer be used to defend homophobia. Anyone opposed to gay rights must now base his position either on personal revulsion or "traditional values". Or, more likely, personal revulsion rebranded as traditional values.

Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that U.S. political parties, at least the big two, are not ideologically uniform. There are a few Republicans sympathetic to gay rights (Lincoln Chafee, arguably a Republican), and there are still plenty of unabashed gay-bashing Democrats (Harold Ford Jr comes to mind). The parties also generally avoid language like "punishment of gays". Even if their ultimate goal is to make gays' lives miserable, they prefer to frame the issue as the defense of traditional values against the encroachment of... blah blah blah. No one is interested in looking persecutory. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's always tradition... for hundreds (thousands?) of years homosexuals were considered disgusting, and that's not something easy to lose. "All non-religious motives for institutional homophobia have basically been discredited" is ridiculous- this isn't something you discredit or justify, it's a social thing --⁪froth^T 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a word,no(86.53.57.148 16:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not aware of any organised political party that has what could be considered 'anti-gay' beliefs that are not based on religion. The closest group i can think of is Scientology, but i guess that would be a religion (although a very unconventional one), and i'm not sure you could consider them an actual 'political party'.

However it's important to note that there are individuals (and probably small groups) who oppose homosexuality on some level for (at least what appear to be) 'non-religious' reasons. I have a relative, for example, who is a pretty hard-core atheist but is also extremely prejudiced against gays. My novice psychology skills tell me that this is just a carry-over from his up-bringing (which you could consider religious), but he does not actively base his beliefs on religion. He just doesn't realise their source.

I have also argued with people on-line who base their opposition to homosexuality on some sort of natural or biological law (e.g., 'it's not natural!', 'it's an evolutionary dead-end!', &c.). This is absurd because biology and morality really have almost nothing to do with each other, and honestly my guess is that the root of their beliefs is similar to that of my aforementioned relative's, but again those beliefs aren't actively based on religion. ~ lav-chan @ 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone identify these plants?

Can someone identify these plants? These pictures were taken in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. Thanks in advance! Servien 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch water resistance

Somebody asked a question here but nobody's answered it. I'd also like to know --⁪froth^T 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I even gave a reference via an outside website. This is another example of why answers to RD questions cannot be restricting to referring readers to articles: because the info isn't in Wikipedia. -THB 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military strength of number

If two military units A and B fought to the death under a given set of conditions, A would have an X% chance of winning and would do so with, on average, Y casualties. Now suppose both sides are multiplied by some number N -- NA vs. NB. Would NA still have an X% chance of winning, and would it do so with an average of NY casualties? Neon Merlin 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even discounting obvious factors like technologial supremacy (like china having many more troops than America, but America could whoop china into next tuesday before next tuesday) and strategic supremacy (like thousands of allied troops dying at the hands of dozens of nazi machine gunners on D-Day), on the battlefield level it still depends on individual soldier skill and I'd hesitate to say definitively anything about battle stats --⁪froth^T 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During my (short lived) consultancy for a military contractor, I was told that the Army uses predictive equations dating back to the first world war to model battlefield casualties. (I do not know what they are called, though) Presumably the arguments to this equation take into account all the factors you mention (or at least the most relevant ones). Raul654 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if someone has already won, they don't need to fight a second time. :]

I believe that the OP was asking whether or not such warfare is linear. To a "small" degree I suppose that it is. However at the margins ("A" has a 99% to 1% chance of winning with Y casualties) "A" may decide to apply maximum force (as Napoleon Bonaparte said, "If you start to take Vienna, take Vienna") and make N = 10. Then I don't believe that "Y" would become "10 Y". Good ol' Napoleon figured that one just fine, overwhelming force will out. So, if he had the resources he would make "N" become "10 N" and would have the expectation that "Y" would certainly not become anywhere near "10 Y". Generaliamo hydnjo talk 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, "B" being faced with a non-linear extrapolation ("N" = 10) may decide to go nuclear and that's that I suppose. --hydnjo talk 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a bit more complicated than just numbers though, and it really can depend on what forces in particular one is talking about. Technology and training can make big differences, as can things like who has the "home court" advantage. While I don't doub that you could come up with reasonable mathematical models, you'd have to factor in a lot more than just how many people were on each side. There are numerous instances of small forces effecting highly disproportionate numbers of casualties on the other sides due to training and technology. --24.147.86.187 18:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose the available technology is such that they can only go person against person, that each individual fight is until death of one of the two, and that the members of the A group are twice as likely to come out victorious. So if the groups both have size 1, the A group has a 2/3 probability of winning. Now suppose both groups have size 2. AA against BB. With probability 4/9 AA survives, with probability 1/9 BB survives, and with probability 4/9 one A and one B survives. They fight each other in a second round, with 2/3 probability for A and 1/3 for B. So for the final configurations we have: AA 4/9 = 12/27, A 2/3 × 4/9 = 8/27, B 1/3 × 4/9 = 4/27, BB = 1/9 = 3/27. In the first two cases the A group wins, with total probability 20/27 > 2/3, while the B group wins with probability 7/27 < 1/3. So the probability does not remain the same. Also, for A against B, there is one casualty. For AA pitted against BB, the expected number of casualties is 22/9, which is larger than 2 × 1. --Lambiam ^Talk 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identify Celebrities

Please watch this commercial and tell me who all these people are. The ones I already know are Dave Stewart, Tom Jones, José Carreras, Robbie Williams, Wallace & Gromit, Jarvis Cocker, Sting. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.218.15.86 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Umm, we do have an entertainment desk. --hydnjo talk 21:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be tricky if you aren't from the UK & I guess that this is 10+ years old. Some more are Statto, Richard Attenborough, Vic Reeves, Bob Mortimer, Alf Garnett, David Mellor, Jimmy Hill, George Best, Chris Eubank, Quentin Crisp. I can't remember the names of the grey haired guy or the woman. JMiall 00:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For Alf Garnett, read Warren Mitchell. JackofOz 00:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Berkoff Anna Friel meltBanana 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

firing order

I need the firing order for a 1981 chevy V6 229 cid motor. If any one can help me PLEASE!! I am going to rip my hair out if my husband asks me one more time.

67.142.130.45 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per (Chevy Production 90 degree - V6 Engine[3]) Firing order on all 90 deg. - V6 engines is 1-6-5-4-3-2. Atom 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Crackers

Are animal crackers actually crackers, or are they cookies? THe article does not clearly say, it just suggests an argument for each side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rya Min (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They're cookies, or biscuits if you prefer. They aren't crackers according to the modern definition of that term. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They crack when bitten, unlike most other animals. I'd actually have more question about whether they are animals. Cracker, biscuit, cookie, fine. But are they really animals? V-Man737 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better question is, why are humans eating them? You don't eat dog biscuits, do you? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... They're not that bad. V-Man737 02:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it that way. Dog biscuit → Biscuit for dogs. Animal crackers → Crackers for animals. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the dog biscuits aren't bad. V-Man737 02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People do feed them to goats. Rya Min 21:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]