Miscellaneous desk
< June 12	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 14 >

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.

June 13

Choosing a martial art

I want to take a martial art, but don't know which. I want to take one that would be good to beat someone with in a street fight but also is good exercise and doesn't require or have a high risk of getting an injury(something a doctor would be needed for) while learning it. I am a 6' tall male who weighs about 190 lbs and am of about a normal build (neither fat nor very muscular), so I would prefer a martial art that would take advantage of my semi-big size. I also want the other people doing it to be adults(I am a college student). Also please don't respond if you (like me) don't know about the differences between martial arts. Thank you all you are good.--RorepmE 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally stick with the more traditional Japanese martial arts, such as Shotokan and Aikido. Aikido is a bit more fast-paced, depending on the instructor, but in my experience it has minimal rates of in-class injury, if practiced correctly. If you were to stick with both of them for about ten years (with a bonus of learning patience!), I think you'd stand a very good chance in a street fight (minus weapons - ya can't block a bullet). If you check the in-class training warm-ups and exercises with your doctor, he can tell you whether they are appropriate. Most SKA Shotokan dojos consist of mostly children's classes, though, so you may want to be organization-specific. The JKA and ITKF seem to be more inclined to host adult classes. Japanese styles plumb the depths of my martial arts knowledge; See List of martial arts if you have a buttload of time. V-Man - ^T/_C 01:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts, like the name suggests, is an art or sport. It can be used for self-defence and indeed many were originally designed with that in mind, however for self-defence on the streets I would recommend a "street combat/grappling" course and not martial arts. I, myself, is a 3rd Dan Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do and have dabble my feet (no pun intended ;) in other forms of martials arts including Karate, Jeet Kune Do and a very limited amount of Kung Fu. I found that these arts did not compare, in terms of practical applications, as the street combat courses that I have taken. However, I recommend starting with a martial art, so that you can build a solid foundation, then moving on to street combat. Out of the martial arts listed, I would recommend Jeet Kune Do the most, as I find it a bit more practical than the other "showy" martial arts. 74.111.82.91 02:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is a bit nitpicky, but wouldn't "street combat" be a type of martial arts? I know the term implies some sort of pretentious school of thought, but the definition that I am familiar with simply means a certain fighting style, or self-defense, as opposed to being an arty methodization of street fighting. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Best" Martial Art. Only students of varing abilities. The most important aspect to any martial art is the teacher. My sugesstion is to look around. Most schools will let you sit and watch, or even attend a class or two before signing up. It doesn't really matter what style you study, you will get good results from a good teacher, and bad results from a bad teacher. Also the teacher's style should fit your personality. Weather you would prefer a drill sgt type teacher or someone more laid back would your personal choice. Also Look at the equipment at the school. There should be proper matting for falls intentional or accidental. As far as injuries go, a good teacher will only teach what you are capable of. For instance a Judo teacher will teach you to fall properly, before he teaches you to throw (and be thrown). If you want to get good a fighting, be sure to take a class where they spar often. That is the only way to actually get better at actual fighting, and some classes spar rarely, while others spar regularly. For instance in the Tae Kwon Do class that I am currently taking, we spar every Thursday. Finally for an adult class, again look around, usually, what you see is what you get when you look at a class. If it is mostly kids you probably don't want to go there. I would look around for schools close to campus that would be catering to College students like you, rather than a suburban school catering to families. BTW I go to a suburban school, and the only time kids vs adults really matters is in sparing. -Czmtzc 13:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the newsgroup rec.martial-arts, a self-defense FAQ -- it's quite pragmatic, because a street fight is a horrible thing to be in and very different from just about any martial arts training you'd do. The best self-defense really is awareness. That said I recommend Systema for being very hands-on and practical (and fun! -- from my experience), if you happen to be near a good teacher. A martial art with a grappling component (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, etc.) tends to have more credibility among people who don't think much of traditional martial arts (usually Japanese and Chinese ones) because of a perceived distance from "real fighting" ("Yeah, but can you use it in a fight?"). Again, the more you're actually getting hit and thrown, the more likely you'll get injured. iames 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Czmtzc comments, and the importance of sparring, you also have to get use to fighting. unless you are an inherently evil sod, it is difficult to want to hurt someone (which even with semi-contact sparring you are going to do). Getting over the natural consideration for you partner takes time (unless you really, really don't like them!) Continued sparring also helps with the Fight or flight response, most street fights are 10/20 minutes of starring each other out, traded insults (and yo'momma), then a frentic scramble of whirlwind arms, legs , teeth etc. Keeping clam, channelling you agression, and picking your targets and hitting them takes experince, best gainned during sparring. But the most important consideration to take into account when chosing a Martial Art is have FUN, enjoy your training, take pride in your abilities and kick the crap out of your opponent Perry-mankster 08:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be, don't choose a martial art; choose a club. I study Kickboxing which is less-traditional japanese martial arts. It is all about the dojo or instructor; go round a few and see what tickles your fancy. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advise I tend to gove at times like this, and which most people tend to ignore, is not to study any martial arts, as they are only used to trick people into thinking you can defend yourself :) Think, would I ever really remember all this, and be able to do it, in a real emergency :) HS7 14:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rainfall

how many gallon per acre is 1 inch of rainfall equal to ???

Well from google - 1 acre = 6 272 640 square inches and - 1 US gallon = 231.000001 cubic inches. So we get 6 272 640/231 approximately 27 154 gallons per acre. Lisiate 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisiate has it, here's a web source, from this page: "One inch of rain falling on 1 acre of ground is equal to about 27,154 gallons and weighs about 113 tons." Pfly 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a much easier way to get the answer from Google: 1 inch in gallons per acre, and 1 inch * 1 acre * 1 gram per cubic centimetre in tons, both of which match Pfly's quote. It's actually quite impressive the things you can do with Google calculator (it doesn't even list all the conversion factors, so you just have to experiment). Confusing Manifestation 01:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cash value of a coupon

In the U.S. coupons often have a statement reading "cash value 1/20 of 1 cent." Does this mean I can collect thousands of copies of the same coupon and get a few bucks at the store?

I don't know, but I do know that the reason for this is that there has to be consideration for the coupon to be valid. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 07:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't return them to the store: they'd have to be sent to the product's manufacturer. The reason appears not to be consideration as Richardrj said but state regulations that treat coupons as trading stamps [1][2]. Of course, generally you can only redeem them by mail, and since mailing them costs more than what you'd get back... --Charlene 07:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, British coupons and vouchers usually have an even smaller nominal value: 0.01p or even 0.001p. Hassocks5489 07:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this value anything to do with the value of paper?

Paradise lost

Does anyone actually still read this book? Can you even still but it is shops? I assume a few theologists and university teachers/students might, but do people still sit down and read it just because it is a great book?

The book remains quite popular. There are several editions currently in print. You can certainly find it in all but the smallest bookshops. Probably a large share of the current demand for the book is for use by students, but probably a large share is by non-students who appreciate classics and who want to read one of the greatest works of English literature. According to Amazon, just one of the editions currently in print ranks number 4,683 out of the roughly million or so books on offer at Amazon. Marco polo 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is read by students primarily these days. It is a staple of intro to English lit. undergraduate courses. It is easy to find — it is a "classic" book and it is also totally out of copyright so there are a million cheap editions around. --24.147.86.187 13:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, because I've never seen it in any shops. Why don't they make peoiple read it in school, it is much better than shakespear, and easier to understand.

Our article on the poem points out that F.R. Leavis and T.S. Eliot's literary criticisms of the poem have reduced its popularity over the last 50 years or so. I'd also point out myself that many American Protestant denominations find Milton's theology borderline blasphemous, so that might be another reason. --Charlene 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it in my senior year of high school. I did also read a bunch of other "banned" books like Beloved as well. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise lost isn't banned. But it is apparently more than twice as long as hamlet, which might be why it is unpopular in school. The religeous aspect might be part of it too.

Personal grooming habits- are they effective?

Only human beings routinely clean their teeth, body and hair using various chemicals. This has been happening for a few centuries. What were the negative effects of lack of tooth cleaning? Do skeletons of ancient people show damaged teeth? The other higher mammals like monkeys certainly do not have our cleaning habits. Their physiology is not very different from humans. How do they manage to preserve their teeth or their hair? 131.220.115.227 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When monkeys can bake donuts, they'll have to brush their teeth too. (Flour and sugar can be detrimental to dental health. Look at what some pet food does to dogs.) There are also many anecdotes of people who stopped washing their hair and liked it. (e.g. Google.) iames 14:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little terse (answering while at work). In full, "stopped washing with shampoo for greater intervals than usual." My point being there is at least some evidence that nature can take care of itself. iames 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People in ancient days (say, more than 2,000 years ago) indeed had badly damaged teeth, as can be seen from any archaeology text. The kind of damage was different, though. Other than the ancient Egyptians, most cultures didn't have much sugar in the diet so they didn't have many cavities, but they certainly had tooth wear from eating more abrasive foods such as roughly-milled grains and tough meat. There's even a chart in one of my old archaeology textbooks showing the correlation between age and wear - by 50 many of the rear teeth would have been worn down to the gum line.

But the idea that moderns somehow have fantastically worse teeth than the ancient Romans or Egyptians is a bit fallacious. Studies of Egyptian mummies have found case after case of dental caries, sometimes leading to death from infection. Two of the main crops of ancient Egypt were honey and wheat, which may explain why. We think we have worse teeth because we live long enough for our teeth to be more of a problem, and we have less tolerance for extracting teeth. Edited. --Charlene 15:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Studies have proven that brushing your teeth with just a brush and water is nearly as effective as using toothpaste, as far as avoiding disease goes. People have been using straw for this purpose for a long time. When you consider the fact that most of toothpaste is bleach and chalk to artificially whiten teeth, and a large bunch of other nasty ingredients (seaweed...), it's not going to hurt you to live without it. Likewise, most hair care products are probably more about making the hair look and smell nice than they are helping to clean more than running water -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 15:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call seaweed a nasty ingredient. It's quite tasty. Skittle 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that most shampoos are quite useless. I am particularly annoyed at all the adverts that say that a shampoo can 'revitalise and rejuvenate' your hair. How can you revitalise something that's always been dead? Also, why do all toothpaste adverts seem to be based around the idea of shooting some very shaky and overall dodgy film of some people with no dental knowledge whatsoever and putting it in the centre of a large black border? Does this only occur in the UK? Also, on the subject of toothpaste, I would not be surprised if they do not actually do much. After all, the reason they added fluoride to the water mains is for the benefit of people who do not use toothpaste, is it not? --Five Miles Out^SQUAWK 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the fact that humans tend to have a longer life span than other mammals has a lot to do with our grooming habits. Personal hygiene, in my opinion, has always had the aim of increasing one's lifespan along with the quality of that life; any tragic ironies in this field will soon be weeded out. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MLA citations

How do you cite a play seen in a theater in MLA format? Ductape Daredevil 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my memory, you should cite it like a book, thus:

Doe, John. The play about a person who wrote a play. New York: Improv Everywhere, 2007.

V-Man - ^T/_C 01:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually saw a performance of the play, you should cite thusly:

Hamlet. By William Shakespeare. Dir. John Gielgud. Perf. Richard Burton. Shubert Theatre, Boston. 4 Mar. 1964.

This is based on an example in my MLA Guidebook. Basically, you list the title of the play first (note this, as it's unusual for MLA), then the director of the specific production, then the major actor(s), then the site of the performance, and finally the date of the performance. Hope this helps. Zagalejo 05:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-ND

Am I right in thinking that CC-BY-ND is not a suitable licence for a wiki (not WMF) intended to be used by edited by more than one user, if each successive revision is a derivative of the previous? 81.104.175.145 15:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For text that's pretty much going to be true in practice. An edited version of a document is a derivative work, and an -ND licence disallows that. You could always have some weird mechanism on your wiki that flags content originally submitted with the -ND licence and disables editing on it, but that seems like too much work to pander to this minor, ill-used, and to my mind rather meanspirited licence. It's easier to do this for images (because images in wikis are changed much less), but really it's the same problem. In general, for a publically accessible wiki, the more licences you allow the more stupid licence problems and incompatabilities you'll incur. Personally I'd stick with exactly one licence and say "thanks but no thanks" to anyone who wants to contribute stuff under some other licence. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name that vegetable

As pictured here: The Goon Show. NoClutter 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeks? iames 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Look like leeks to me. Skittle 16:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeks would make sense as they are the national vegetable of Wales, and Harry Secombe (aka Neddie Seagoon, right in photo) was definitely of the Welsh persuasion. (oops, forgot to sign) SaundersW 16:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corn called "maize"?

What geographical areas call corn "maize"?

"The term maíze derives from the Spanish form of the Arawak Native American term for the plant. However, it is commonly called corn in the United States and Canada. Corn is a shortened form of "Indian corn", i.e. the Indian grain. The English word "corn" originally referred to a granular particle, most commonly cereal grains." according to our Maize article here on wikipedia. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should reverse your question: what geographical areas refer to maize as corn? The historic British usage is to call the principal cereal crop of a region 'corn'. In England wheat, Scotland and Ireland oats, and in North America maize.—eric 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. The reason I said the question the way I did is that I have never heard corn referred to as maize before, although I had heard of the spanish word maíz before.--71.185.138.232 17:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People in the UK call it "maize," so that has been forced onto the article about corn. The US is the world's largest producer and does not refer to sweet corn or field corn as "maize." Canada calls it corn. Google shows 63,100,000 hits for "corn" and only 13,700,000 for "maize." [3] shows that the US is the world's largest producer, exporter, and consumer of corn. UK is lumped in with the "EU-25" Euro union, which collectively produce less than one sixth as much as the US. The term "maize" is rarely used in the US, and most people would not know what plant it referred to. Edison 19:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What actualy does Corn/Maise refer to? Is it those little round yellow things that aren't really food? In the UK we call that corn.

So if we call it corn, you call it corn, canadians call it corn, who actually calls it maize?

I call it maize! - sweetcorn and maize are the samething? I agree with the earlier poster that there would be a confusion of corn with wheat in the UK. (There is a 'corn' processing factory were I live called 'MAIZECOR' - that may have affeted my usage..)

In the U.S., it is even called maize - sometimes. For instance, the USDA's Maize Genome Database. This usage tends to be in scientific circles and less often by the government and is not at all consistent. I just noticed a job posting for a maize geneticist in the USDA Corn Genetics Department! Rmhermen 20:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really strange. I have lived in the U.S. all of my life and have never, ever heard the word maize, and if somebody had mentioned it to me before I saw the wikipedia article, I would've had no idea what they were talking about.--71.185.138.232 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously missed those Mazola (btw, the word Mazola comes from maize and oil) commercials where the woman says something like, "We Indians call it maize." By the way, corn/maize is also grown in Egypt, India, and China. Most of the corn/maize crop worldwide goes towards either non-food products (e.g. plastic) or heavily processed food ingredients (e.g. high fructose corn syrup).--Charlene 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you have a "maize" color in your box of 64 Crayola crayons? -- Mwalcoff 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the health benefits of Mazola corn oil, she said "You call it corn, we call it maize." I always thought Mazola maize oil sounded odd. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In most Romance languages, I understand the root mais or mays is mostly used, with "corn" meaning more generally "grain" as an exception for those who came across it, not knowing what to call it. V-Man - ^T/_C 01:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Italian is a Romance language, and they call it granturco ("Turkish grain") for reasons that are obscure to me. There's probably a cognate of "maize" somewhere in the language but I don't know what it is and don't think it's much used.

In the United States, in common speech, "maize" doesn't mean (what we call) corn in general, but specifically means "Indian corn"; that is, dry, hard-kerneled cultivars, usually in pretty colors (red, blue, purple). Yellow and white sweet corn, and popcorn, are almost never called "maize". --Trovatore 01:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I may have been wrong about Italian. [www.garzantilinguistica.it Garzanti] seems to support me -- the definition of mais defines it as granturco, but the granturco entry doesn't mention mais, which would suggest that granturco is the more common word. However, picking up my copy of La polenta nella cucina Veneta (don't ask me why I have a book on polenta in Veneto cuisine), I see a section called Dal mais alla polenta, which begins

Il mais o granturco è una pianta erbacea annua appartenente ai ceriali....

and from there forward it calls it mais. --Trovatore 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For non-English names, see wiktionary:maize#Translations
In my Irish experience, "maize" is used for the whole crop growing in a field (e.g. a maize maze), and perhaps as a bulk animal foodstuff or non-food. I have never heard "corn" used to refer to any crop or cereal other than maize, except in poetic, archaic or historic texts. As a human foodstuff, "sweetcorn" is usual for individual niblets (e.g. mixed with frozen peas or as a vile pizza topping). Note unambiguous uses in Britain such as "corn on the cob", "popcorn", "baby corn". Kellogg's don't sell "maize flakes" anywhere, AFAIK. I suspect this is one of those differences like "billion" that's embalmed rather than living. jnestorius^(talk) 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're right about that, then I think the maize article should probably be moved to corn. --Trovatore 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Maize" is the term used in the US and elsewhere when one wants to be clear about exactly what plant species is being described. "Corn" may be a more common name, but due to the differing meanings of "corn" around the world, "maize" is commonly used by botanists and anyone else desiring clarity. I'd always heard that in England, "corn" meant something other than maize. But even if that is no longer true, the term "maize" is useful for describing the species. As a previous commenter pointed out, in the US the term "maize" sometimes means "Indian corn" rather than the "regular" corn people eat. But both are the same species of plant, a species called "maize". Pfly 06:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I still say billion for 10^12 :( I always though maise was what the native americans called it, and maize maze is probably only used as corn maze or wheat maze doesn't sound as good :) HS7 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy United States Half Dollar

I found a half dollar today that had two fronts (ie. Kennedy on both sides). Both sides are marked with 1972, and one side has it rotated 90 degrees from the direction the opposite side is facing. Is this worth any money? I've googled it but couldn't find anything. I've tried weighing it and bending it, but it doesn't bend and weights the same as a real half dollar. Have I found a special coin that's worth money? 69.117.135.228 17:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's probably not worth a whole lot, see here. --LarryMac | Talk 17:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a two headed coin. I have an english one. Try gambling with it.

Witchcraft question

In [4], four children try to sacrifice a cat to improve their grades. Of course, if it were common to sacrifice animals in elementary-level witchcraft, there'd be something about it on the PETA site. Nevertheless, it raises a few interesting questions, and I'm wondering if there are any witches here who could answer them. How experienced would a group of four witches have to be to cast a spell to improve their grades? How long would it take, and what materials would be needed? How would the constraint of not sacrificing an animal change this? Would charming the teacher necessarily be the easiest or most effective route, or would it be better to improve their own mental abilities or arrange to divine the answers? Neon Merlin 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the second one is the most reliable. It also alows a range of success rates depending on how good you are. Finding the answers intuitively is unreliable and only either works or doesn't. Doing something to a teacher is even more difficult and cheating. Skill isn't the only factor either, how long they spend trying to do this also affects their success. Generally thoughit is often easier for most people to learn to pass in the normal way.

Among those who take magick seriously (a few exist), I strongly suspect the common answer would be: Your best bet is performing magic on yourself to improve your study habits. Charming your teacher is hardly ethical, and most teachers probably won't give you better grades just because they like you. Friday (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've ever heard from Wiccans on things like this is that it's a bad idea to do bad things. Both the animal sacrifice and the cheating would count. The consensus seems to be that if anything happens at all, the result will be much worse for you than if you'd just let things be. Black Carrot 23:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Wiccan, but I hang around quite a few. For Wicca, and some other forms of Neo-paganism witchcraft (Wiccan is not Witchcraft, it is a specific religion), it would break the Rule of Three which is part of the Wiccan Rede, which Black Carrot mentioned above. The Rule of Three is essentially a pagan version of the Golden Rule. It states that "An it harm none, do what ye will", it is also written as "Ever mind the Rule of Three, three times what thou givest returns to thee, this lesson well, thou must learn, thee only gets what thou dost earn".

Harming the cat (e.g. sacriface) would bring the evil/bad luck back to you three times. Most, if not all Wiccans and Neopagans would abhor this type of sacrifice. Magical spells is limited to divine energies, and herbs for the most part. Beyond that, I'm sure that the Neopaganism Wikiproject would love to answer your question. Zidel333 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would take you longer to learn and successfully practice the magic neccessary to improve your grades than to study for them.hotclaws 08:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no proof yet that wicca theurgy actually works. Apart from the herbs, but that is just biology.

Wicca sounds like the kind and gentle side of magic. There is also Vodou ,Hoodoo , Pow-wow (folk magic) and the whole List of magical terms and traditions. The Malleus Maleficarum is an anti-witchcraft book from the 15th century, which was published in 36 editions from 1487 through 1669, and which provides a great detail about the supposed methods of witches. The Lacnunga is an early 11th century book which provides some remedies, and charms, which are much like Prayers. Many have found prayers comforting in the face of adversity, which exams often are. Studying (or "revising" if you are British) will likely produce higher grades, hour for hour, than any magical subterfuge. See also a reprint [5] of an editorial long printed at the end of each schoolterm by the Daily Illini about those who have not a prayer when exams are looming, even though they sought to pacify the diabolical instructor by offering up a little bull. Edison 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that should be pointed out: don't get your information on Wicca, or anything whatsoever for that matter, from a Chick Tract. --Charlene 02:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indian ethos and business ethics

transparency international and other ethical bodies?59.88.79.109 18:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you wanting a list of organisations similar to the Berlin-based Transparency International that try and stop corruption in Indian businesses? As far as I am aware, Transparency International is the largest body that does this sort of work. I can try and find a list of others if you wish, though. --Five Miles Out^SQUAWK 21:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arms

in america how far could someone streach the right to bear arms? Could you drive down the road in a tank or carry a huge rocket launcher thing around? What about in england, this little rock in the middle of the sea, which Actually Is Still Here. If I were to go in to a dangerous part of england, would I be allowed to defend myself? Finally, are there any countries where people have the right to arm bears?

Read Gun politics in the United States and Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Essentially, Americans are allowed to bear personal firearms - ie a pistol, but not automatic weapons. In England, firearms are not allowed anywhere, but "being allowed to defend yourself" would be different. You can use self-defence, but not with a gun. For instance, in 1999 Tony Martin shot dead a 16 year old burglar who was stealing from his farm. He received a 5 year sentence for this. JoshHolloway 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this differs depending on what U.S. state you're in, who you are, and what the circumstances are. Note also that the Second Amendment has been the subject of very few constituional cases. It very well may be, for instance, that the federal government could ban handguns outright. It just hasn't tried. -- Mwalcoff 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before answering, I should mention the fairly lively question and answer on the Second Amendment on June 11.

I will stay to the US component of this question, as that is the only one I'm removely familiar with. As the Second Amendment article will mention, there is not an absolute right to bear arms, and only a minority of courts have concluded that the right is individualized. So yes, consistent with the Second Amendment, your rocket launcher could probably be restricted (in fact, I'd also to have to wonder whether the FAA might even be able to restrict that for aeronautical reasons). I don't know about your tank; the tank itself is probably fine, but the armaments it is decked out with could easily be restricted.

I should also note that just because there might (or might not be) a right to bear arms in the United States, the right to use said armament is not implicit. You need to have valid reasons for self-defense, and those vary from State to State (for example whether you must retreat if possible or whether you can "stand your ground"), and exceptions for self-defense in homes (undoubtedly the most extreme standard would have to be the Make My Day Law; see also [6], since the Wikipedia article is little weak on the subject, and see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-704.5). –Pakman044 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tony Martin case is slightly more complex than first appears... the burglar was shot in his back, whilst fleeing, making Martin's argument of self-defence more difficult. It's also untrue that "In England, firearms are not allowed anywhere". See Gun politics in the United Kingdom, which unfortunately isn't a very good article, but does (just about) make clear that whilst the UK has "what is believed to be some of the strictest gun legislation in the world", you can possess guns. --Dweller 08:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The possession of pistols is banned in some US cities. (in one small town, on the other hand, it was once REQUIRED). Where possession is allowed, concealed carrying is heavily controlled in many states, with permits hard to get. In some areas, people could theoretically wear a pistol on an exposed gunbelt like they were in the wild west, and could carry a rifle or shotgun. Possession of fully automatic weapons, RPGs, hand grenades and many other armaments is banned or strictly controlled in the US. In the early 20th century it was not so, and Thompson submachine guns were marketed to the public in the 1920's. In 1934 the National Firearms Act severly restricted purchase or transfer of automatic weapons by private individuals. In the 1780's in the US there was a difference of beliefs about armed power, with the "democrats" favoring state and local militias to prevent tyranny by central government as well as foreign invasion, and the Federalists favoring a national army. The second amendment to the US Constitution refers to the importance of a "well regulated militia" before saying the poeple have the right to keep and bear arms. Edison 16:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although if the sole intent was to ensure that the States could keep and bear arms it could have said so. —Tamfang 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Vermont and Alaska you can carry a gun, exposed or concealed, for any lawful purpose (i.e. it becomes illegal if you're on your way to do a crime with it). In most states a permit to carry a gun cannot be denied unless you're crazy or an ex-felon; in most others, you can get a permit if the police chief personally approves (which usually means you need connections). Usually, I believe, the permit does not authorize carrying openly; but in some states, e.g. Virginia, you can carry openly without a permit. (Gotta say it felt a bit weird to walk into a ~~stop'n'rob~~ mini-market in Nevada with a pistol on my hip.) —Tamfang 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One hears that in Britain you can be prosecuted for carrying anything that can be used as a weapon, including a pocket-knife or a walking-stick, particularly if you should be so antisocial as to defend yourself with it. —Tamfang 16:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about in the UK, what if I were to go to somewhere like the London Docklands where I might be attacked, what would I legally be allowed to do?

So that's it then? I'm stuffed?

The point is that if nobody has guns - everything is taken down a notch. Whilst you cannot defend yourself against an attacker with a gun, it's very much less likely that your attacker will actually have a gun because they are hard to obtain. Since your odds of surviving someone attacking you with a gun aren't very good even if you have one yourself, your odds are better this way. Note the most important statistic of gun ownership in the USA: You are more likely to be killed by your own gun than by someone else's. The biggest benefits of limiting gun ownership - and the general ability for criminals to obtain them - is that events like Columbine and Georgia Tech are much, much less likely to happen. Sure someone can go nuts with a crossbow or a knife or a club - but just how many people could they kill that way without getting overpowered? You don't cut down on the number of violent crimes - but you do cut down on the number of deaths that result from them. SteveBaker 23:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for "more likely to be killed with your own gun than someone else's"? I asked because I used to be interested in the politics of guns, and there were always a ton of highly questionable statistics thrown around on both sides. Friday (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To defend yourself, you are allowed to use 'reasonable force' in the UK. This means that if a jury feel the amount of force you used was reasonable in the situation, you're okay. If you use more force than a jury would consider reasonable, like shooting someone in the back as they ran away from you, you have a problem. If you're over 16, I don't think you'll have problems carrying one of the penknives that can be bought in many shops (but IANAL), but stabbing people with it could cause problems. Skittle 14:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soup

Who (what people[s]) invented soup and how?--71.185.138.232 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of info at soup but I doubt you'd be able to narrow the invention down to a single culture or area. Dismas|^(talk) 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed a month ago. Adam Bishop 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every soup has a different history. Work your way through list of soups and check out each one.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shower

On top of my bathtub's spout, there's a little button thing. When you pull it up, water is redirected to the showerhead. How does that work? (I've been trying to find a diagram for a half hour, no luck.) Black Carrot 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, it is only a simple mechanical linkage to a valve. When you pull the button, the valve slides shut and prevents the water taking the easy route out of the spout. Instead, the water pressure forces the water to climb up the pipe into the showerhead, where it then sprinkles out. I'm not entirely sure exactly how the mechanical linkage works (it may even vary from manufacturer to manufacturer), this is the general idea. --Five Miles Out^SQUAWK 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my bathtub, it simply lifts a plug into the spout, and water pressure in the spout holds the plug against a protrusion in the pipe. When you turn off the water, the pressure is reduced, and the plug falls back down. --Carnildo 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. When I turn the water up towards full pressure with the button down, some leaks out the showerhead. Would that suggest there's some kind of blockage in the spout, simulating what the plug does? Black Carrot 23:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably works similar to this image. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countries in the world

How many countries are in the world?

It depends how you define country. Our list of countries suggest there are "245 entities considered to be countries", for the breakdown, see List of countries#Entities included in this article. Rockpocket 22:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list at List of countries gives 245 entities considered to be countries. However, the exact number depends on how you define a country. Do you include generally unrecognised countries such as Palestine or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Unfortunately, because there are quite a few countries like this, the number could variate quite a lot depending on their inclusion. The linked article has much more information on what has been classified as a country for the purposes of the list. (EDIT: Sorry, looks like Rockpocket got there just before me...) --80.229.152.246 22:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A stricter definition of "country" is that it is a sovereign (independent) state that other countries recognize as such. By that interpretation there are 193 countries: all of the United Nations members plus Vatican City. However, there are also a number of places that are de facto independent but are recognized by only some countries. Many people consider Taiwan a country, for example. See the list of unrecognized countries for this sort of situation.

Also, although the United Kingdom is a country by the above definition, it includes components such as England and Scotland that are themselves called "countries". When we speak of the number of countries "in the world", these are generally not counted.

--Anonymous, June 14, 2006, 01:08 (UTC).

THere are 192 countries in the UN, and the list of unrecognised countries has 12 more, whilst the list of all countries has lots of dependancies, which are still technically parts of other countries. So, depending on your definition, either 192, 193, 204, or 245.

The CIA Factbook [7] is a frequently-updated guide to details of each of the world's "countries." It includes everything from China (greatest population) to Pitcairn Island (smallest population) leaving out made-up "Micronations." Deduct the entry for the world itself and the European Union, since its members are also listed individually, and you have 233. Palestine has no entry in the list. Certainly some of these listed lack sovereignty. Edison 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're thinking of 192 as being a possible answer because it's the number of UN members, that doesn't work. It would mean that Switzerland wasn't a country until 2002. As to the CIA World Factbook, I suggest that they are calling the things that they cover "countries" because they want a single short word for them; as noted, certainly include many of them are not sovereign. It's like American forms that ask for a postal address with "city and state", although your "city" may actually be a village and your "state" may actually be the District of Columbia. --Anonymous, June 14, 2007, 22:35 (UTC).

well as long as you trust Steven Spielberg, you can listen to this song from the Animaniacs viewpoint and count along http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDtdQ8bTvRc Childhoodtrauma 23:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They missed out Andorra, Vatican City, San Marino, and probably a few more, Transylvania is in Romania now, and lots of those names have been changed since then, so don't actually trust it :) And the 192 count doesn't have to not include switzerland, if you can think up some reason they are all countries apart from Vatican City :) China seems to have managed it somehow :) HS7 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]