Miscellaneous desk
< January 25	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 27 >

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 26

U.S. millitary

Does the U.S. force civilians to join the millitary/fight in war? have they in the past? isn't this just wrong, and violate the constitution? why else do we pay taxes?

You're describing a military draft, which is periodically authorized by Congress. To the best of my recollection, the Constitution doesn't address it. Taxes pay for a good bit beyond the military (and inherently can't prevent a draft -- tax dollars don't force people to enlist); check out the 2007 United States budget for an example (and note that defense isn't even the single largest line item). As for "isn't this just wrong" -- that's a moral question to which every person will likely have a slightly different answer. — Lomn 01:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1918 case Arver v. United States that the draft is constitutional. -- Mwalcoff 01:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court's primary job is to rationalize whatever the other branches want to do. This is the obvious flaw of having the foxes appoint the dogs who guard the henhouse. —Tamfang 15:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another related issue is when they recall former soldiers under the clause saying they can be recalled to service "in times of national emergency". Many feel that this clause is being thoroughly abused by the Bush administration. StuRat 05:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are countries that do a lot more then force civilians to join the military in times of war. Many countries still force civilians to join the military in times of peace. Vespine 07:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press conferences

Why is the background behind the speeker ALWAYS blue (with the exception of event/sponsor logos)? everything from sports to the white house, the background is always blue. is there a good reason for this?

Short answer: it's not. However, the backdrop is usually chosen to avoid visual clutter (for example, dark blue looks better with business suits than neon green). — Lomn 01:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue is a neutral color, as Lomn pointed out, like white, and I've seen equal amounts of both colors in press conferences. With purposes other than colorational (is that a word?) neutrality, Most White House press conferences use the Presidential Seal as a backdrop, which is predominantly blue. V-Man737 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're blue so the Ministry of Truth can more easily add/edit/crop the resulting videos using bluescreen techniques. --Cody.Pope 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the reason why, but blue also contrasts strongly with the color of human flesh, making the speaker's face more visible. The reason movies and weather reports use "blue screens" is because human skin has very little blue in it. When they replace the blue, they won't be replacing the actor's nose, too. TheSPY 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember an Olympic broadcast on NBC, possibly 1976, where the anchor's blue blazer faded into the bluescreen. I liked the effect, but they had to go and "correct" it. —Tamfang 15:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megapixels

why does it take more megapixels to make a decent looking picture in print than on screen? my screen is 17" and roughly at 1 megapixel (1024x768 - 1280x960) resolution, pictures look great. to make print that big, i would need 5MP or so for it to look good. Why?

In my experience, you usually need a better printer to get better quality in prints. Of course, with the difference that you are noting, it seems to me that the issue you are experiencing may have to do with conversion from computer monitor pixels to printer dots per inch. V-Man737 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I know that it happens, but can't fully explain why. One reason might be that we tend to read things on paper by holding them more closely than we typically keep the computer screen. But that explanation alone doesn't seem adequate, as 100 pixels per inch is great on a computer screen but you need a minimum of about 300 DPI on paper to make a decent looking print. StuRat 05:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A typical LCD screen is 72 DPI, some CRT's might go up to 150DPI - modern color laser printers can go up to 600DPI(I'm sitting next to one) and some inkjets claim 1440DPI. An image at 72DPI looks ok on screen and bad on paper at the same physical size because the printer is producing a sharper image than the monitor. Thus you can see imperfections that would otherwise be invisible. It's like listening to a CD over mediocre headphones, and then listening to the same CD using a pair of Grado GS1000's. Only when you're wearing the expensive headphones can you hear the single 2nd Violinist who plays a wrong note halfway through the first movement.--inks ^T 06:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but there's still something wrong with this logic. If printers could be made just as fuzzy as monitors and look just as good, why wouldn't we be using such a setup ? There apparently is something inherently "pickier" about printed media. StuRat 07:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because people demand higher resolutions than 72 DPI for printed items. Maybe the backlighting of a picture on screen also has an effect?--inks ^T 09:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had fun reading Color vision, and would recommend it. The brain reacts differently to different expectations. --Zeizmic 13:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that different media have different resolutions to them. As for why it is different, it has to do with the way the screen works. And yes, you can make things blurrier and get away with a bit, but if the medium is one where blurriness is easy to detect, then you are going to notice it. Television screens are generally made in a way where blurriness is hard to detect — they are very low resolution, in the end (720 pixels across usually). DVDs are usually targeted at 720 pixels across, which is one of the reasons they can look blocky when run on a computer screen. The problem isn't expectations, it has to do with the physical hardware used to display the images. The problem with print is that you generally can't perceive individual "dots" with any ease, whereas on a monitor you do it all the time (the dots of the i's in this edit window are single dots). --24.147.86.187 13:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating at betting

I'm writing this story, but I haven't thought it through very well, so could someone tell me of a way that one may go about cheating at betting on horse races involving a pawn that deliberately loses every bet they make and using their own money? Vitriol 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways, here are a few:

Injure the horse you bet on, say by giving them tranquilizers.

Make another horse run faster, say by giving it stimulants.

Bribe the jockey (of the horse you bet on) to lose.

StuRat 05:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Francis has written many fine novels which are about horse racing, and a number of those dealt with betting fraud schemes. He might have dealt with the ploy you propose. How could the pawn be sure his bets lost? He would need to dope the horse he bet on to lose, or dope another to win, or bribe/threaten jockies. Now he has bet and lost. How does he get rich that way? Could a chronic loser ever become well known enough that when the payoff race came he bet on a horse, others saw that he had, and bet on the competition, then his horse naturally won 30 to one odds? You could only pull that once, and it would be hard to be a famous enough loser that placing bets on a horse would actually increase the payoff enough to get back the money deliberately lost plus the cost of fixing the races. Easier to deliberately make a good horse lose so that it could be bought cheaply, or so it could become disfavored, get long odds, then win the payoff race when the tampering was not done. Edison 05:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll just abandon that idea. Vitriol 15:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Edison's first idea is so outlandish, where it fails at pragmatism it wins as flimflam. Here's how it works: Some swell walks into the parlor, among the lowlives sees another respectable businessman at the bar, slumming it just like himself. Why, it's Louis Fitzgerald III, or "Lucky Louie" as they call him, joyfully losing every horsey bet (he can afford it, anyway). "Everyone" knows Lucky Louie, so much that people routinely bet against him. But Shock! Surprise! today is Mr. Fitzgerald's big day– he makes a huge win on a long shot and "retires". Mr. Fitzgerald of course confides to our protagonist (on his way out of town) about the great scheme he's worked out with his lowlife partner, per User:Edison above. The partner just needs someone with a little capital to start the scheme over, and the superstitious lowlives can be expected to adopt our protagonist as their new patrician "mascot". Our new Mr. Lucky places regular losing bets through his partner, and waits for his big day. He starts having doubts, wondering if his partner was just pocketing the bets, but on the big day his horse wins. Too bad his "partner" is long gone, having placed all his accumulated con money on that winning horse.--Pharos 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the scam used in "The Sting" where they rely on the fact that the people who are betting are not hearing the race live - but (in that case) it's coming "over the wire". In a betting palor, one could attempt to delay the radio/tv signals using a TiVo or something so that the people who are betting are seeing an event that's already finished - THINKING that it's just about to start. Since you (the proprietor of this den of ill repute) already know the result, you can set the odds such that you can't lose. Of course if the race starts at a known time and they all have watches, it kinda falls apart...but that was the plot. SteveBaker 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Guard

Whats the difference between National Guard and the rest of the US Army and US Airforce? the articles on National Guard, Army National Guard, and Air National Guard all fail to explain this!

The United States National Guard is composed of state militias, which can be "nationalized" in times of emergency, to be made into a reserve military force. In practice, they are most often used in dealing with domestic security threats, like riots, but can also be used in foreign wars. StuRat 05:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words the National Guard is under state control while the US Army is under federal control. Joneleth 16:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the National Guard is under federal control during times of national emergency. As, for example, the current occupation of Iraq. The National Guard is also used for disasters such as flooding, forest fires, etc. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's most accurate to say that the National Guard (note the name) is a Federal entity on permanent loan to the States, which may be withdrawn at any time. To call it a "state militia" is an abuse of the term in my humble opinion. —Tamfang 15:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Service investigations

Would the United States Secret Service investigate threats made against George W. Bush in his article on Wikipedia? I mean if someone vandalized his article and made an explicit threat against him. Just curious, of course. --Joelmills 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try it and see! Vitriol 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is they would log it in their records, if they became aware of it, but would take no further action unless there was any evidence that the threat was credible. There must be thousands of threats against Bush, after all, and they can't waste their time investigating all of them, so concentrate on significant threats. If you included a plan, which seemed to be well thought out and had some chance of success, then they would take it seriously. If your plan was to drop an elephant on the White House from an airplane, they would put a "crackpot" note on your file and close it immediately. StuRat 05:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely expect that they would do their duty and track down the threatener. Quickly. Edison 05:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They absolutely track and prosecute all threats both from within and (when possible) outside the United States. Even if you say you'll drop an elephant, they'll track you down. --Charlene 06:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the elephant? Clio the Muse 06:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They would probably charge the human, but elephant charging is a bigger deal. Edison 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to buy a special charger at a store that deals with professional electricians. --Anon, very quickly, Jan. 27, 03:15 (UTC).

If you're going to charge an elephant, you'll need a big gun. Personally, I'd run the other way. Clarityfiend 08:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends on whether or not there was anything suspicious hidden in its trunk...Carom 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on you guys, just drop it. V-Man737 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exact and complete pedigree of Imam Taqi

I want to know the exact and complete pedigree of Imam Taqi as to how many sons he had besides Imam Naqi, their names. Whether Abu Zafar was also his son if so his pedigree—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.153.4 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2007

Do we have a page on him? Have you checked it? If not, I suggest asking on the Humanities reference desk. 68.39.174.238 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams

Why is it, that 13 years after retirement, I still have dreams where I am working.--Johnluckie (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My father believed we often dream about things and events that aren't important to us, anymore, since we're occupied with other things in daytime. Otherwise, I don't think anyone really could give a sufficient answer. 惑乱分からん 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

35 years after high school, I still have those 'can't remember where my locker is" dreams... --Zeizmic 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dad (a professor) once said, "I knew I'd reached middle age when I dreamt I'd forgotten to give [UK: 'set'] an exam." —Tamfang 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every single dream I have takes place in the house I lived in when I was growing up. Anchoress 13:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of my dreams are set at "home", but on waking I invariably find that the scene in the dream has no resemblance to any of my numerous residences. What does that mean? —Tamfang 16:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some researchers believe that dreams are a mechanism or process of consolidating recent experiences into our long term memory structures. Something which happened today may be similar or analogous to something that happened at work, or some relationship with a client, boss or coworker. When you wake up and remember a dream, you can ask yourself what happened recently that the dream incident reminds you of. Freud had the insight that in dreams, the things we see may be puns related to life situations. A Freudian psychologist who taught "Theories of Personality" in college told of a patient who dreamed he dug a trench, filled it and dug it again. In the course of analysis, it developed that the man was worried about his income and his debts, and felt he needed to "retrench" his finances. Edison 18:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best sex I ever had was when I had "wet" dreams as a boy. Wish I could have them again but they seem to be the privilege of the very young.

I never had one. I've had dreams involving sex, but always woke up before the good part; must be the excitement. —Tamfang 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams are made when your brain pulls memories from your subconscious & creates them into a dream. Memories used can differ from events in your past to stuff from yesterday. Stuff you may not notice (such as if you watched a movie where a tiger is in the background, you may have a dream about a tiger) is often included in a dream, & problems in real life can over spill into our sleep time. Dreams can also be our brain's way of trying to resolve past traumatic or unsolved occurances. Someone or something you may not have thought about for years may be included in a dream - this is just your subconscious cycling your memories so that you don't forget in a way. Events which were reoccuring, such as school or work, are often included in dreams more than others due to the large exposure to these places. Alternatively, working dreams could be interpreted as a meaning. Meanings for dreams can be found as this site Dreammoods.com, which is very good in interpreting dreams... Hope this helps... :) Spawn Man 04:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bittorent clients

Yeah, so I use Bittornado, and am currently downloading a large file(1.5 gb) that's a couple years old. It has already taken three days to get to 58%, but then an error message occured saying "Permission denied". It seems now I can't restart downloading the file. So I was wondering if it's possible to download a new Bittorent client, and get the download at the same position as it was previously. Because I don't want to have to restart the entire download from the beginning. 68.167.0.198 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely, unless you upgrade to a newer version of Bittornado, and make sure to keep all the settings intact. However, I don't think that the "permission denied" error message is due to your BitTorrent client, could it be the tracker denying you permission to access it? Also, I should point out that three days to download 1.5 GB is not all that unusual on BitTorrent, especially if a file is not very popular. Be patient! — QuantumEleven 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you'll also get a Permission Denied error if your torrent program isn't being allowed to write the information to the hard drive (generally because your hard drive is completely full). So before you take too drastic measures, I'd recommend you ensure that you do indeed have enough space on your drive for the rest of the file. Also btw, we do have a computing reference desk as well, where this would probably be more appropriate. --Maelwys 15:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experiences, it's just a tracker error. You can also try enabling DHT, though I'm not sure BitTornado has it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Killer

There is curently a case in the Canadian courts concerning a serial killer of over 50 women, what is his name, and do we have an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.161.223 (talk • contribs)

Robert Pickton --Justanother 14:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy its 49 women, of which he is currently charged with 26 counts.

Fish in Winter

Im places like canada and Alaska, if a river has fish in it during summer, and then in winter the river freezes up, so that the whole river is in ice, from top to bottom, what happens to the fish? do they freeze in the ice?

If there is a river so shallow that it freezes completely, well yes, fish in it will freeze. But fish are smart enough to swim to deeper rivers, lakes, or the sea, before this happens. If any group of fish start to develop a tendency to stay in shallow water, they will be snuffed out by natural processes. Weregerbil 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, not the entire river, lake, etc is frozen. Thus, ice fishing exists. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some fish have the ability to survive being frozen. --Carnildo 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those fish are the Notothenioidei, who live in Antarctic waters, and have antifreeze glycoproteins in their blood. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers in Southern Canada don't generally freeze over, let alone freeze all the way through. I lived in Northern Canada for a number of years and never saw a river that was both shallow enough to completely freeze through and deep enough to have a fish population. In fact, now that I think of it, I never saw a river shallow enough to freeze over - most only froze to a depth of one metre, even after six months at -20 and below. --Charlene 05:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there rivers that do freeze through perennially? V-Man737 06:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is possible. There would have to be some high part that froze through first, and the whole of the river below that would then either dry up or continue to be fed by tributaries.--Shantavira 09:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a river that's frozen all the way through would be a glacier. But ice is an excellent insulator - so once the water has frozen down to a depth of a few inches, the insulating effect of the ice makes it more and more difficult for the heat in the water to escape into the air. I'd be very surprised indeed if there are rivers of any size that freeze all the way to the bottom. If they did, the fish would be trapped in a thinner and thinner layer towards the river bed - when the river 'glaciated' - they'd all be at the very bottom. If the river flowed like a glacier does, they'd be ground to paste in pretty short order. SteveBaker 06:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

info for you

I was looking at info on St. Patrick & found someone had hacked the site & added their own disgusting info there. Please check it out!!

Thanks for all the info you make available to us.

If you're referring to the article on Saint Patrick, I'm afraid I couldn't find any disgusting info (and no trace of it in the article's history in the last few days). Did you perhaps mean another article? In any case, thanks for bringing this to our attention, vandalism is an unfortunate side-effect of Wikipedia's openness. Next time you spot some vandalism you can also fix it yourself by reverting the article, for instructions, see Help:Reverting. — QuantumEleven 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moulding and shaping leather

How can leather be treated to retain a moulded shape such as a breast plate? Jim, Prince Albert, Sk.

see Cuir bouilli and the Cuir Bouilli FAQ.—eric 17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buying Nintendo DS Lite

If I buy a Nintendo DS Lite in America (including all the batter recharger cables etc.) and bring it to the United Kingdom, would I be able to buy British games and use them on my American console, and engage in group games also? Would I also have to buy a plug apadtor so I can rechard my DS Lite? Thanks, 81.131.35.104 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DS is region free; the only games that won't play on a US DS are Chinese ones (the DS doesn't have the Chinese alphabet installed by default). As for mulitplayer, British games should work fine, but for US carts, it depends on the game. Mario Kart DS lets you play against anyone, but some don't. As for the charger, oddly, although my (British) DS's instruction manual includes over 20 safety points on using the charger, including "Danger! This cord may be used as a noose!", it doesn't mention international use, although Nintendo's online version features the vaguely worded "When using an AC adapter, make sure you are using the correct model appropriate for your Nintendo DS" and "Connect ONLY accessories designed and licensed for use with the Nintendo DS to any external connectors". The US Nintendo is much more blunt though: "ONLY use the AC adapter... US/JPN"[1] so I suppose that means you'd have to use a plug converter rather than buying a new cable. Laïka 17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This cord may be used as a noose"? How obvious can something get? Sort of like the tag on my scooter: "This product moves when used." bibliomaniac 1 5 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it's a sight less gruesome than the hypothetical improvement: "This cord is dangerous if you tie it around your neck while the other end is attached to a ceiling fixture (see diagram)."

How to find an appropriate dividing line for attributable blogs, and those that are not?

Obviously a large amount of the blogosphere is one-person's opinion, diaries of coming-of-age teenagers, etc., and therefore of no use to an online enclyclopedia like Wikipedia.

But a small part of the evolving blog world is citizen journalism of a high calibre. Some are truly making information available that is not available elsewhere, whether breaking current events, or high-quality, non-commercial (and free) web directories.

I have looked around Wikipedia, including WP:V and WP:Policy, and tried to find a link to where is the appropriate place to discuss this on WP, rather than get partial discussions by various small groups on myriad different article pages. Is there any place this is being done at the meta-level?

Thanks. N2e 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One article where some of this discussion is going on is Talk:Flat fee MLS, which by the way could definitely use a few more eyeballs from non-conflict-of-interest Wikipedians. But I am interested also in the broader question for Wikipedia in general.

You could take your questions about reliable sources over to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources; I see a number of discussions there about blogs already. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tony Snow. That was exactly the information I was looking for. N2e 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Definitely not Tony Snow. Right industry, wrong country and a bit to the right on the political spectrum. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 04:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that Blogs should almost never be used as a source in Wikipedia. Blogs are of too low quality, to temporal, and most often "off the cuff". Even in the case of a recognized expert in their field, the blog is not reviewed, edited or subject to peer criticism, and not of the same quality as the same persons comments in a journal or book. There are many people who disagree with my view and think that in the instance of a recognized expert, a blog should be allowed. I feel, for the purposed of meeting the standard of a reliable source, a blog almost never meets that standard. Atom 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longest sung note?

Can someone tell me how long the longest note sung by someone (either professional or amateur) is? I did a bit of google searching and found 20.2 seconds. However, I'm sure this can't be the longest note ~~as I can relatively easily hold a note for between 25 and 35 seconds without any vocal training~~ (Sorry, that's for humming, as for singing, 20 seconds isn't too hard, with a bit of practice I reckon I could get 25 seconds. Is this all I need to break the record?) . Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --80.229.152.246 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it isn't a rare thing to hum for twenty seconds straight. However, I'm picturing a person singing, like so that an audience can hear. To sing a note at an "audible" level (i.e., for an audience) would be difficult to hold for twenty seconds, as the amount of air needed to sustain such a volume would be tremendous. V-Man737 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the site, that was for great hits, not overall. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... What's more, you'll probably find it difficult to locate any sauce that mentions the longest note ever sung (let alone describing the requirements for qualifying in such an endeavor). V-Man737 03:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got some sauce! Check here. Now this is the longest note held is a recorded hit, 20.2 seconds by Morten Harket, lead singer with group A-Ha, but it gives you some idea and what is even cooler is that you can listen to it! --Justanother 03:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit more: Barbra Streisand - reportedly 25 seconds. Here is a thread on long Broadway "belts" with 15 sec mentioned as impressive but consider that this is belting it on stage, not crooning into a studio mike. Here is a singer's forum with links to their best efforts and a claim of 30 seconds. --Justanother 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly bow to your superior search skillz. V-Man737 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks. BTW, I kept saying "sauce" 'cause it tickled me - I liked it! --Justanother 03:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reason for picking it up. ^_^ V-Man737 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still kicking round with this one - don't know if it is copyvio but if you want to see Streisand belt for 19 sec [2]. --Justanother 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the info. Maybe I should go for the longest note played on an instrument instead (without circular breathing). This one is actually listed in the Guinness Book of Records as being 49.2 seconds long. I reckon with a bit of practice I should be able to get reasonably close to that on my clarinet. Even if I don't, it will be good practice. Oh, as a little side question, does a hum have to be with the lips closed? I can make some lower sounds that sound mainly like singing but a bit like humming at the same time and I would like to know if this is really singing. Thanks --80.229.152.246 12:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See humming and, for entertainment purposes, the Hum. (It seems that one could conceivably reduce "humming" to "making a noise while holding your breath" in an effort to make longer and longer records. ;-) V-Man737 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]