Miscellaneous desk
< January 7	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 9 >

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.

January 8

what would I be

what would i be if my aunt got married to someone.and that person now which would be my uncle had an x-girlfriend that had a kid that had 2 kids if those two kids were the grandaughters of my uncle now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.28.59 (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A nephew. Nice try, though. Superm401 - Talk 00:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or niece, in relation to your aunt. Though I suspect you are really asking about your relationship to your uncle's grandchildren. Of course, you are not blood relatives, but you might consider your new relatives "cousins by marriage". To be really specific, you could call them your aunt's husband's grandchildren. Marco polo 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or uncle's grandchildren, since "uncle" is not specific to blood relatives. Btw, a nephew to an uncle does not become a niece to an aunt; he's still a nephew to the aunt. Same for nieces. JackofOz 01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Marco Polo was trying to be gender non-specific (although I gotta agree, it probably isn't in relation to the aunt). At any rate, the answer to the original question is that it would, in fact, make you a monkey's uncle. (Or, depending on perspective, a West Virginian, but we'll not get into that.) V-Man737 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused copyright question

Hi, I have read Wikipedia's FAQ on copyright, but I am still confused. I found an online book that is copyrighted by its author. The website states:

Permission is granted for an individual to make only a single electronic copy or paper copy for personal reference purposes. Permission is not granted for an individual or institution to make more than a single copy, or take part in any arraignment where a third party is either paid or charged for a copy or the reproduction of one. Nor is permission is granted for distribution of any of this material (in whole or part) from any Internet site (other than the author's site of fraser.cc). Inquiries should be made to the author if you wish to make other than a single copy for personal use or to distribute any of the material from your own Web site.

Am I not allowed to put any of it's information in an article? Even if I reword it? Even if I properly cite it as a source? Thank you for any help.--Bobo is soft 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you can't copy and paste it. You have to rewrite it in your own words, and yes we want you to cite it as a source. This question belongs on the help desk though. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a typical copyright notice; quoting, rephrasing, etc. is still covered under fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair use for details on fair use claims with text. --24.147.86.187 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrasing has nothing to do with fair use. It isn't a copyright infringement at all. Only expression can be copyrighted, not ideas. Superm401 - Talk 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. In practice derivative expressions can be considered derivative works. It isn't quite as clear cut as the standard mantras would have it appear; if you look over the case law for fair use suits (Stanford's site is especially good for that) you'll see how the line between expression and ideas gets pretty murky. --24.147.86.187 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

photo copyright

I've added the photo to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Styles, and have gotten a message that it was scheduled for speedy deletion. I've tried to add the GFDL-self to it, and want to let it be known. As nice as Wikipedia is, it does seem to be cumbersome.

If copyrights have to be a certain way to be published, it should be noted concisely, and the options in the drop down menu when adding a photo/file shouldn't allow one to select an inadmissible copyright... don't you think? Why make more work for Wiki by allowing multitudes of people upload works with inadmissible copyrights which have to be deleted. In my case the end result is going to be the same... a photo added. But an extra hour of my time, and some of yours (wiki's), has been seemingly wasted.

Thanks03:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone finds image uploads and copyright wrangling a pain, even experienced wikipedians. You're not alone! --⁪froth^{T C} 09:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we let people pick inadmissable copyright statuses is because otherwise people who want to upload something imadmissable just pick an admissable one at random, even if it has nothing to do with the image. I don't want to criticize but if you had just read the upload page before uploading it is pretty clear about what is necessary. Any terms which might be unfamiliar are linked to articles describing them. Not sure what else you are looking for here — it isn't our fault that you decided not to read the disclaimers which are printed quite large and with some parts written in nasty red and bold. --Fastfission 21:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think fart jokes are funny?

The low point of a Family Guy episode tonight (and perhaps the low point of the series) was a fart joke. That got me thinking: I have never met anyone who thinks fart jokes are funny. Yet they are remarkably prevalent on TV and, especially, in greeting cards. Does anyone think fart jokes are funny? I can't imagine the Family Guy writers laughed out loud when they wrote the joke. Do they (and other humor writers) think there's a population out there somewhere that really loves fart jokes? -- Mwalcoff 04:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself Flatulence_humor--Light current 04:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the show tonight, but the sheer pervasiveness of that kind of humor on American TV alone should convince you that plenty of people respond to it. One example: Recently on Saturday Night Live they parodied a show called Most Haunted, specifically the show's resident medium Derek Acorah, framing the entire skit around just such humor. It's fair to suggest that the writers of Family Guy are well aware of how cheap or low such humor is, but you could also argue that it's expected from a character like Peter Griffin. Personally I like the show, but it's hardly High culture. To some degree, being an adult and openly enjoying that kind of humor is something of a minor taboo ... which may go some distance in explaining why you don't know anyone who enjoys it.Wolfgangus 05:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear, at least in some situations, to function as a bit of a meta-joke. That is, the basis of amusement is because it is so lame and juvenile. See, for example, its use in the recent (and rather good) Children of Men. A mature Michael Caine uses the old "pull my finger" line (twice!) to some amusement from the audience. Not because its a funny line, but because of the contextual contrast of an elderly man making such a childish remark. As a proof or principle - I challenge you to read the intro of our pull my finger and refrain from smiling. I found it mildly amusing, probably because of the contrast between the puerile subject matter and the matter-of-fact, encyclopaedic description (and because the person doing the guffing is referred to as an "illusionist"!) Rockpocket 07:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think fart jokes are funny. It depends on a person's willingness to be immature for a time. It's a bit like suspension of disbelief in a way. On the other side of things, my father doesn't think "toilet humor" is funny at all. But then I think he was born being 60 years old... And yes, I know this is POV and OR. Dismas|^(talk) 08:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)_{please don't ban me}[reply]

Every once in a while, people need to reflect on their bodily functions with a philosophical perspective and laugh themselves silly. Isn't it hilarious that our bodies make bizarre noises as they get rid of gas? Certainly not all the time. But still... V-Man737 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's kind of like the lone "Your. Mom." comeback.. it's so bad, it's good --⁪froth^{T C} 09:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing for sure, I would bet my house and my pension on the original questionner being a US American. Only that race could re-invent itself to be "above" natural bodily functions and the natural and inoffensive humour that results. Prudishness personified. That's why they don't use the lavatory, toilet or water-closet, favouring instead - the Bathroom. Get real before you disappear in a cloud of faecal gas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.235 (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This is a reference desk, not a soapbox. Wolfgangus 11:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record -- yes, I am American, and no, I don't dislike fart jokes out of prudishness. I dislike them because they're stupid. And it's not like other countries find fart jokes funnier than Americans do, do they? I don't think I've ever seen a fart joke in a French movie. -- Mwalcoff 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a barbaric society where people commonly use terms in professional conversation that allude to septic functions of the body? Now bathroom (over toilet) doesn't sound so unusual for an advanced society does it? Anyway, I think it evolved more from "washroom". --⁪froth^{T C} 20:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A TV program which only has fart jokes would get rather tedious. A few farts, on the other hand, mixed in, are hardly flatal to the show. StuRat 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the writers' fartistic freedom, huh? (Sigh...) 惑乱分からん 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could counter your horrible puns, but I think I'll pass. V-Man737 05:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just committed a fragrant foul. --StuRat 06:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nooo! ;_; LOL. We're not worthy. V-Man737 06:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope certain sitcoms catch wind of this. The last time I agreeably sat through a sitcom, I was aghast at the people who consider it to be some kind o fart. Most of the humor was derived from sex, toilets, or merciless personal insults. Actually, I was impressed when on The Drew Carey Show they used more original humor than toilet humor. My main griping is for those dime-a-dozen sitcoms that came out in a gust of foul air in the late 90s. V-Man737 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the French translation for Fart? Is it Mistral, or is that just a strong wind? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.35 (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The mistral is a specific type of cold katabatic wind occurring for example in the Provence. The French word for the noun "fart" is le pet, and for the verb péter, whence the stage name Le Pétomane. Note that these words may be considered vulgar. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette burn on enamel surface

Is there any possible way to remove a small cigarette burn from an enamel surface like a bathtub? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 06:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dad has some hot sauce that might work... On a more serious note, I would suggest bleach, were it not for the ridicule my last recommendation of the purgatory substance harvested. V-Man737 13:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my own experience: My opinion is that one should physically remove the discoloured layer with a fine sandpaper or buffing compound and a rotary hobbyist tool (Dremel) fitted with with a buffing disk. Bleach does not seem to remove the brown colour. I have seen paint remover restore a whiter colour, but that "wore off" after a few months - the area went a light beige colour, and the surface felt slightly roughened and pitted. I'd try buffing the area, since that is what we ended up doing anyway. Once the surface was quite smooth and shiny the whiteness lasted for at least 4 more years. Whatever one does, that section of the enamel finish is permanently thinner or weaker than the unburnt part. --Seejyb 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try white vinegar.

Choice

All preferences seem reactionary insofar as they are either reinforced responses (punishment/reward scenarios both in childhood and in adulthood) or counter-reactions to those same enforcements. It seems that even logical deduction cannot escape this process; after all, to properly form a string of logic, the subject would need to have experience in that realm of knowledge. Of course, that realm of knowledge would have been obtained through the means described prior (either forced upon the subject or chosen by the subject as a result of earlier, external preference-forming.)

This creates the question, where are the preferences coming from in the first place? Would it be too bold to say that society and the maintenance of society is the genesis of these impulses? It seems that individuals surrender individual freedoms for some conception of a greater freedom or ability. For example, one can enter into a society where a particular idea is "banned" (every society has their sacred cow), but in return for this restriction of thought, they gain solidarity and support. After all, reliance on others seems to be an innate human need to an extent (division of labor, and all that.) The societal groups try to cultivate this even further, usually by the implicit threat that if uniformity is not achieved, the individual would be separated from the rest. I've noticed that this creates an almost crippling conformity, even in counter-culture groups. Combined with the natural human tendency to adapt to a situation (like Stockholm Syndrome), it seems like many who favor this conformity favor it only because they dislike the alternative. It's somewhat sad that this is what passes for contentment nowadays.

It seems that if this were the case, there would truly be no free will or free choice.

Anyway, what do you fellows think? .V. 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have explained is essentially the behaviourist view of learning, also known as connectionism. Connectionist theory has expanded to take on board more cognitive approaches, which basically recognize that not everything can be explained purely by stimulus-response-reinforcement connections. For the most part, it is basically understood (as you have asked "if this were the case"), that no, it is not the case. People are more complicated than bundles of nerves that are just automatic responses to stimuli. See also Gestalt psychology. BenC7 11:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure people are that complex. .V. (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close as I can figure, if everybody is completely free, then everybody is completely unfree. Conclusion: some people are more 'free' than others. I'd recommend investigating Nietzsche, though, if you want an in-depth analysis of 'freedom', 'will', 'choice' and so on. Also, I do not recommend the Matrix trilogy. Vranak

I think it's quite clear from observing people that free will is a complete illusion. Whenever you are faced with a choice, you can make a completely free choice, and yet it is the choice you will always have made. If someone was exactly the same as you and had lived exactly the same life as you, and was in exactly the same position, they would make the same choice. You act as humans have to act. However, you have to act as if you had free will, otherwise what's the point? I have seen no evidence that humans need be anything other than physical beings, making their decisions through electrical impulses and chemical reactions. However, it is often easier to deal with humans if you treat them as something else, something simpler. Macro view over micro. Cognitive approaches use a useful model for people who interface with humans; it's less useful if you're looking to perform surgery on a brain, for example. Skittle 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connectionist theory started to expand to include cognitive concepts because it was found that connectionism could not adequately explain all behavioural phenomena that could be observed. There was an experiment where mice were placed in an area with one exit straight ahead, which turned a couple of times and eventually led to a food reward. After a few runs of this, the mice were put in a similar area which now had multiple exits, with the one leading straight ahead blocked off. Instead of choosing one of the paths leading close-to-straight-forward as expected (since this behaviour had been rewarded before), the mice actually chose the path that went most directly toward the food. The conclusion was that the mice must have developed some sort of "map" that told them the general direction of the food from the starting area - a very cognitive concept.

I would recommend reading more on the development of connectionist learning theory (including how it has moved in more cognitive directions, and why) before concluding that humans are robotic responses to stimuli with no ability to choose anything. A good book (although it is a little old) is Learning: A survey of psychological interpretations by Winfred F. Hill, if you can find it and are interested enough. BenC7 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why the ability to form a map in your head would require anything other than physical brains operating through chemical reactions and electrical impulses. Plus, since I already know humans can do this, why would telling me mice can do this affect my view of how human minds work? Oh, note I didn't say humans had no ability to choose anything, just that all the choices they make are predictable and inevitable. You say 'robotic responses to stimuli' like that means simple reflex reactions; robotics and computers can be quite advanced :-) Again, these ways of looking at how minds work are useful, but so is centrifugal force. Skittle 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think that centrifugal force has much to do with brains, except when you're trying to launch someone into space while at the same time trying to avoid squishing their brains with G-force. :-P V-Man737 02:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was trying to make the point that centrifugal force, though intuitively appealing, does not exist. Now - no doubt that the brain does work through chemical reactions and electrical impulses; but the OP was saying that preferences to do one thing or another arise solely from reinforced responses. In the mice example, I was demonstrating that behaviour cannot always be explained in that way. BenC7 06:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh... So, brains can't get squashed with centrifugal force? V-Man737 06:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very difficult to make any decisions like this, as for me almost all choises seem equally good, or bad. But then I also have lots of conflicting oppinions about the same things at the same time, so this could explain it. Or maybe nothing can explain the brain, as it is what is also trying to do the explaining. Also if centrifugal forse doesn't exist, does potential energy really exist?Hidden secret 7 20:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belly Stripe.

What is the dark or sometimes light colored stripe/line found on pregnant ladies tummies? What is the purpose there of? Thanx,--Crazypinkster 12:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stretching of skin? 惑乱分からん 12:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Stretch marks --Maelwys 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx but i was refering to the stripe that passes down the middle vertically right over the belly button! Any ideas?--Crazypinkster 13:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linea nigra --Seejyb 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was a village in Mexico? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.235 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cyrus cylinder

Hi guys. Is there a free picture of the Cyrus Cylinder ? (I cannot find any on Commons). If not, could someone go the British Museum and take a photo of it ? Thanks a lot, bye. --NeuCeu 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cyrus_The_Great_Seal.jpg

This is non-free ! There is no source for the picture and IMHO, it has been abusively tagged as PD. --NeuCeu 14:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's so easy to get a picture of anything in the British Museum. It would be like telling someone to get a PD picture of the Mona Lisa. --Zeizmic 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it forbidden to take a photo in the British Museum ? We have commons:Category:British Museum, so I supposed that it's possible to get a picture of an object exposed in there. --NeuCeu 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict and Anthony removing my comment) - It is forbidden to take photographs in many areas of the British Museum as flash photography damages the works. The fact that it does happen - because of the hundreds of ignorant people who all think 'well, my one photo won't hurt' and the cretins who rapidly take many flash photographs of the same piece - does not mean we should encourage it, at all. Proto::► 15:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - the museum's copyright policy (located at the bottom of their webiste) states that all images are protected under copyright; furthermore, the images are from the United Kingdom and therefore do not qualify under Fair Use. Editors of Wikipedia who are more experienced in the area of copyright than I am may be able to clarify, but I have sourced my answers from the British Museum website and from Wikipedia:Copyrights. Anthony cfc ^{[T • C]} 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is copyrighted originally in the UK does not impact a claim of "fair use" under U.S. law. Rmhermen 16:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked this up, and it's generally impossible to get any 'clean' PD picture of any museum work, unless the museum releases PD images on the web. That means people should annoy the museums 'that it is part of their mandate', yada, yada. --Zeizmic 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's weird ! Look at commons:Category:Louvre, you will see that it's authorized to take photos of pieces in the Louvre with no flash of course (only some parts of the museum are restricted to photography, the excuse is that it blocks the crowd ; but if you take a photo when it's not overcrowded, the guards won't tell you anything) and French contributors started to take pictures of everything interesting in the museum. So, yes, it's possible to get a free picture of Mona Lisa (look at Image:Crowd at Mona Lisa.jpg). So when we need a picture of something in the Louvre, we just ask some guy to go there with his camera. Is there a page like Wikipedia:Asked pictured or something like that on en:WP ? --NeuCeu 16:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, here it is: Wikipedia:Requested pictures --Maelwys 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many museums ban pictures, and some take a very broad-brush ownership of pictures that are snuck out. [1] As well, 'slavish' pictures of paintings cannot claim their own copyright, so I suppose that means they are PD [2]--Zeizmic 17:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the FAQs section of the British Museum:

Q: Can I use a camera? A:Photography with flash and video recording is permitted in most galleries for private purposes only, using hand held equipment. source: http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/aboutus/faqs/faqs1_4.html# ny156uk 17:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't like the sound of that 'for private purposes only'. I've emailed the British Museum Visitor Information to ask them to clarify whether that means pictures can be put on Wikipedia as Public Domain images. Skittle 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Delivery of the email failed. Anyone else want to try? Skittle 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of points. First, the copyright notices on the web site (at least, the ones I saw) are entirely about the images on the web site, and thus irrelevant. Second, if the museum rules prohibit you from photographing something that is itself in the public domain, it doesn't necessarily mean that the museum owns the copyright. I say "not necessarily"; I am no expert in copyright law or museum law in Britain or anywhere else. I'm only saying that the situation is complicated. --Anonymous, January 8, 00:37 (UTC).

IANAL, and this is not legal advice, but when I looked into this issue in the early days of Wikipedia I got the distinct impression that museum have the unfortunate habit of claiming intellectual property rights that the law provided, at most, rather scanty support to. --Robert Merkel 06:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

How long does it take a new article to post and what is the process? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Hartz Mountain Corporation (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It takes effect immediately, just like the post you just made. Of course, depending on how awesome the new article is, it could get deleted just as speedily.V-Man737 17:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Starting a new page for help, and Wikipedia:Notability for when something is considered notable enough to have an article. Cheers, Dar-Ape 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is sometimes a delay, usually only a few seconds, either at Wikipedia's end or at your end. Try reloading the page to get the updated version. In some cases, you may also need to clear your cache. StuRat 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which can be done with a quick Shift-F5 on the page in question --⁪froth^{T C} 20:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mobile phone top up in USA

How can i top up my vodafone mobile while in the USA using a top up voucher purchased in Britain? I have tried dialling 2345 but cannot get through on cingular or t-mobile. I would appreciate any help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.122.195 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure that it will be possible. Prepaid mobile accounts are unusual in the United States. People typically are billed on a monthly basis for their phone use over the preceding month. Also, Vodafone does not have a retail presence in the United States. Their customer service number in the UK will almost certainly not work in the United States, where four-digit phone numbers are virtually unheard of. (Most mobile phone companies use 611 for customer relations. You might try that and see what you get, if anything.) If you go to Vodafone's website, they seem to be partnered with Verizon as their retail provider in the United States. I'm not sure that your UK plan will be valid in the United States, I doubt that you will be able to top it up, and you may simply have to purchase a new account and SIM card here. Marco polo 19:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New word

Hi WIKI... I HAVE TRIED MANY TIMES TTTOOOO LOG IN... B-U-T IT ALWAYS SAYS THIS NAME IS NOT REGISTERED..W-H-A-T IS W-R-O-N-G..

I WISH TO SEND A NEW WORD TO THE DICTIONARY... SINCE 2004... "PERSONALIZATIONS" WHICH WAS COINED FRON PERSONALIZED & AMORTIZATION...

THIS MEANS: MAKE BALANCE REDUCTION PAYMENTS TO YOUR EXISTING MORTGAGE WITHOUT INCURRED INTEREST... Tricky Dicky LAW in 1972... after making the current mortgage payment each month ANY ADDITIONAL payments to the existing BALANCE reduces that existing balance by the B.A.L (Balance Reduction Payment), thus the full payment is applied to the balance without any interest incurred... thus the full amount is subtracted from the balance... to produce a NEW BALANCE.

No need to use all caps. I would add that word to Wiktionary: [3]. It isn't necessary to login to do so, as far as I know. StuRat 18:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are trying to login using your Wikipedia account on Wiktionary? That isn't possible - yet. You have to re-register at each project (often you can use the same name.) Rmhermen 20:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, personalization seems to be a bit older than 1972, and means something a bit more mundane. Of course I'm sure it's a homonym. V-Man737 00:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger capacity of cruise liner lifeboats?

I saw a picture of the liner Queen Mary 2 on Wikipedia and noticed that the port side showed only 10 lifeboats (I imagine the same number as on the starboard side). That set me to wondering what capacity each lifeboat has. In searching the web, I came across a regulation taken from the Canada Shipping Regs. and noticed the requirement that each lifeboat be able to carry 37 people, meaning the 20 lifeboats on QM2 would only be able to carry 740 people, not nearly enough to save the entire crew and passenger list. So what is the fully laden capacity of a modern on-board lifeboat, and where are they all stowed? And for good measure, how frequently are the crew trained in their use - in all weather conditions? Thanks. ps I am aware that QM2 is not a Canadian Registered Ship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.235 (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Here's a page on the Carnival Miracle cruise ship that indicates it's got 12 lifeboats fitting 150 people each, six tender/lifeboats for 150 people each, and 52 inflatable life rafts with capacity of 52 each, for a total capacity of 4,520. Its passenger capacity, according to that page, is 2,680, with a crew complement of 961. So, those lifeboats should be fairly roomy! The US Coast Guard provides that consumer fact sheet with information on safety; I can't find specifics on training requirements at present, however. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lifeboats aren't roomy -- if you need to be in one, it's going to jammed and uncomfortable, but better than drowning. The relevant quote from the CG fact sheet: Modern cruise ships carry a variety of survival craft. Passengers are invariably assigned to lifeboats or similar survival craft. The total capacity of all the survival craft on board will exceed the total number of persons on the vessel). In other words: passengers get lifeboats; crew get inflatable rafts (and there are probably several dozen on board the ship.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

I know that the cost guard (in the US) requires a complete check of the safety procedure on cruse ships at least once a year. From my own observations this includes a simulated evacuation with the life boats. It also includes simulated fire drills in multiple parts of the ship. Including theatrical smoke. :-) S.dedalus 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above helpful and informative responses. You Wikipedians never cease to amaze me. Keep it up!

A while back when I was on a cruise ship and we had lifeboat drill (done while still in port, and for passengers only; crew had a separate drill), my wife and I looked at the boat and could not believe it could seat the number of people it was supposed to hold. It would at best be extremely crowded, which also means it would be slow to load. --Anonymous, January 9, 00:42 (UTC).

Too many people on the server? :P Vitriol 01:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From now on you shall be called "VitriLOL." V-Man737 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop vs. Desktop

Hey, I'm looking for information on how laptop sales are competing with desktop sales. I heard that this year will be the first year most people buy laptops but I can't find any article to back that up.

Thanks. - Pyro19 20:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of articles on the topic [4] [5]. They don't confirm exactly what you say, but BusinessWeek cites a NPD Group study that said through October desktop sells fell 5% while laptops sells were up 35%. I did find this Survey: Notebooks Surpass Desktop Sales For First Time however its dated 8/19/05. —Mitaphane _talk 22:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's very reliable since you cannot count the number of desktops just by sales figure. For example I can buy CPU at shop A and motherboard in shop B and ram in Shop C etc. to build my new computer and yet I have not bought a complete system from any of the shops and thus on paper my computer doesn't exist. At best the sales figure only counts the pre-made computers and thus putting desktops at a disadvantage here. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet that the computers built by end-users from components don't even amount to statistical noise in the grand question of laptops versus desktops. Atlant 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then how can the numerous independant computer stores and newegg and whatnot survive? --antilived^{T | C | G} 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I am not the first person to go home-built in this day and age, and there are 'screwdriver shops' that will build a system for sale that are essentially local shops that sell built computers. Most "enthusiast" users end up building thier own computer so as to control what components are in the computer, maximize performance in relation to cost, or simply get the best that can be built with current technology. It is a market large enough to have companies make 'enthusiast' products such as motherboards with better overclocking options in order to cater to demand. Robovski 00:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pertaining to the ref desk

Whenever I enter a ref desk, it gives me an archive of it instead of the actual desk. Why? Thank you. Ilikefood 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the days are archived before they are removed completely from the main page. It's nothing to worry about. --24.147.86.187 21:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's called transclusion, and the goal is to keep the page down to a reasonable size without actually deleting material until the discussion has ended. If you SHIFT-CLICK or CONTROL-CLICK on "edit", most browsers will open a new edit window or tab on the archived section and leave the old page as is, unmolested. StuRat 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Art - Niyuddha-kride

OK i'll ask again,

I've seen 2 different descriptions of this martial art, where one describes it as a type of wrestling Fighting arts of India and the other as a type of striking art Wikipedia - Niyuddha-kride . As I have limited resources, it would be muchly apprecited if someone could give me clear infomation or some links to this art, as much as possible too ;). Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kachi (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Horst Tube Submarines

Does any one know where I can get info on the Horst Tube, used in submaries by the Germans in ww11. This tube completely covered the propellor of the submarine, to increase speed or thrust. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garyrich (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I note that you've also posted this question on the Science reference desk. Please decide which reference desk you wish to post this question upon, and delete it from the other(s).

Atlant 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's what they were called? I can't find any mentions. Proto::► 16:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked everywhere for ducted propeller configurations, but can only find them for tugboats. They are only good for low-speed, high-thrust work. --Zeizmic 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that make them "Horst vessels"? Edison 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding some info on a ship

Hellow, i am looking for a ship called the USS Burias. My grandfather was on that ship. His nane and ranke, Seaman 2nd class Franklin J Simmons. I would like to know moer info on the ship he was on? Thank you Harold D Ogilvie Jr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harold Ogilvie (talk • contribs) 07:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Have a look here, Harold [6]. You may be able to get more information for your grandfather in the linked veterans info and crew reference pages. Clio the Muse 10:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]