Miscellaneous desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 8

Sudan democracy?

Is the political system in current Sudan a democracy? The articles on Wikipedia seems to contradict each other. Jamesino 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per our article Politics of Sudan, Sudan has some democratic forms and processes. For example, it has a parliament. However, most members are appointed by the ruling party, led by the president. It has presidential elections, but, while the ruling party is popular in the country's Arabic-speaking heartland, per the BBC, opposition politicians have been jailed, and opposition parties have boycotted elections, charging the ruling party with vote-rigging. In sum, Sudan does not uphold the same democratic standards as most Western nations. Marco polo 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dreams

Somebody once told me that dreams are your "innermost desires" or "most feared" fears. Is this true? Or is it something that your brain just does so that it doesn't get bored during sleep? Any info would be good. thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.211.8.100 (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You might find some info in the Dream article.--Diletante 00:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can be any of those things you mentioned, and a lot more. They may simply help to resolve ambiguous feelings towards a particular person or thing. Vranak

Thanks for all the info- it really helped with what I was trying to figure out

Part of your brain's job is to conceive scenarios — "what if my chair faced the other way" or "what if I were to hide behind this rock when the antelope come to the river to drink" — and imagine likely outcomes. When you're awake I guess this function is constrained by what's reasonable and relevant, but in sleep it goes a bit wild. That's my guess, anyway. —Tamfang 03:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's your brain's way of running simulations. That's why we often say "let's sleep on it" and come up with a solution after we do. StuRat 05:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a scientific standpoint the questions of why we dream, how we dream, and the functions of dreaming are all currently unresolved. Quite apart from the science of sleep, Dream Science, thanks in large part to advances in brain imaging technology, is proving to be a very interesting area of study, spawning a variety of theories. Two among the currently popular theories regarding dream functions are: to help with learning and memory (see above) and to resolve conflicts that occur during the day or to deal with traumatic events. It has also been suggested that dreaming has no function and is simply an incidental byproduct(epiphenomenon) of REM sleep. Another view, though one increasingly declining in popularity, is that dreams are a mechanism for forgetting (note how elusive our memories of dreams often are) and that trying to remember them is actually counter-productive to their intended purpose. Anyways, here are a couple cool articles that cover some of this stuff [1] and[2]. The first one gives a decent overview of the subject and the second discusses the so-called Contemporary Theory of Dreaming, kind of an interesting synthesis of the first two theories I mentioned. Sleep tight. -- Azi Like a Fox 07:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming is very much based in your subconscious, although that does not mean it's exclusive to 'desire' or 'fear'. Almost anyone who's ever looked into Lucid Dreaming could tell you this. And just because it has to do with your subconscious doesn't make it important. In fact, usually it's pretty random. But things such as DR (dream recall) and how often you can successfully LD have been nearly proven to relate to how much you believe it will work- which is rooted in your SC. Some LDrs even report being able to talk to a being most call an SG, or Spirit Guide, and while some people believe it's an angel or something New Agey, many believe it to be a mental incarnation of the subconscious. I highly suggest you check out Wikibooks article on Lucid Dreaming, as well as ld4all.com - LDing or even reading the experiences of LDers will give you a big look into how dreams work -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 13:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The G.O.D.

How can I get Google to turn up results for "The G.O.D."? When I search that term it gives results for "the god" with no punctuation. 206.124.144.3 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you might want to search the term in different ways. For example, instead of searching for "The G.O.D." search with different setting (for your search). Another option is to type the entire thing out (eg. "The G.O.D." being The (G)reat (O)rwell (D)ystopia ). If that doesn't work, check your spelling and search engine settings.--User: ECH3LON = )

I believe this is a limitation of Google, however. It ignores punctuation in search terms. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 04:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not always true, but it does seem to be true that a series of single letters, like G.O.D. (and also "g-o-d" or "g o d") is always treated the same as if they were run together. This is useful if you're searching on something like NATO, which is also written N.A.T.O.; but it's irritating when you actually want to make the distinction. As Echelon suggests, you have to find other search terms. --Anon, May 8, 2007, 06:00 (UTC).

It is a limitation of Google. A while back I tried to use Google to find all the instances of "U.K." here but it would not take the punctuation into consideration. Dismas|^(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google treats dots between words as phrase-joiners, just as if you had quoted the words. So searching for the following are equivalent. --TotoBaggins 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the long and winding road"

the.long.and.winding.road

I tried "G\.O\.D" (the slash is an 'escape character' on many systems - it tells the software NOT to use the special meaning of the '.' but to take it literally) - and I got a bunch of hits for "G.O.D" but also "G O D" and stuff like "G*O*D" - but none for "GOD". That should help to narrow your search. SteveBaker 03:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean backslash. I've never seen it documented as having any special meaning to Google -- but, good G\.o\.d, you're right! Thanks, another handy trick to know! And here's one in return: in phrase searches you can use * as a wildcard matching any one word (sometimes it matches a few words; I'm not sure when). For example, "the * syndrome" matches things like "the metabolic syndrome", "the Marfan syndrome", and "the nephrotic syndrome". --Anon, May 9, 09:30 (UTC).

Lakes

I heard the MAJORITY of lakes are in Canada. Is that true? seems kind of outrageous to me. so like what, Canada has more lakes than the rest of the world combined? by number, area, volume, or more than one of those catagories. and how's that fair.. they should be obligated to share/export water then!..or do they already?

I don't have an answer as to the majority of lakes, but as far as sharing water goes, it's kind of expensive to pump water around. Check out the articles Los Angeles Aqueduct, Colorado River Aqueduct, Croton Aqueduct, and others in Category:Aqueducts in the United States. Those aqueducts rely on reservoirs that have billions of gallons of water. If you started tapping into all the small lakes in Canada, you'd have to build a huge water supply system, and you'd end up draining them pretty quickly. Once you drain a lake, fish and other animals can't live there any more. The Environmental impact assessment statements for draining Canadian lakes would probably attract a lot of local opposition, as well. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake#Trivia says that over 60% are Canadian (by number, I'm guessing), so it must be true, right? Clarityfiend 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at volume, among the largest freshwater lakes are the Great Lakes. Of the 5, one is wholly within the US (Lake Michigan), and the other 4 are on the border between the US and Canada (Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario). Some smaller lakes, like Lake St. Clair and Lake Champlain, are also on the border. So, depending on if you consider these to be "Canadian lakes", or not, you will get very different results. StuRat 05:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you won't get "very different" results. We're talking about the number of lakes, and the number actually on the border is small. --Anon, May 9, 9:41 (UTC).

I said "Looking at volume", didn't you notice ? StuRat 01:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the "major" lakes? A.Z. 05:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe everything you hear (even if heard here).--Shantavira 08:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know but its very posible, a lake doesnt have to be big, an acre of water with a stream flowing in and another flowing out would be a lake, much of the tirain of canada suits perfectly to these types of lakes, on a simulir note an even larger precentage of Irish lakes are found in the one small county, cavan Ken 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes are unusual in many parts of the world because, over time, they fill with sediment. They are common only in areas recently glaciated, where sediment hasn't had time to fill them in. Canada happens to include a large proportion of the recently glaciated surface of Earth. Lakes are especially common in areas where the glaciers scoured an undulating surface of ancient bedrock, known as a shield. Such conditions do not exist in most of Siberia, which was glaciated, but where surfaces tend to be steep, recent mountain ranges or flat, sedimentary plains. Earth's largest shield to undergo recent glaciation is the Canadian Shield. It is much larger, for example, than the Baltic Shield, which also has a high density of glacial lakes, but scattered across several European nations. So it is not so surprising that most of Earth's lakes are in Canada. Marco polo 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has strict laws regarding water removal;[3] most of their water is trapped in glaciers etc; in fact, the percentage of potable lakes/rivers in Canada compared the world is closer to 7% than 50%, and most of their water, stored in the Great Lakes, is shared with the US, which has a lot of very large water-guzzling cities in the Boundary Waters area (eg Chicago, Minneapolis, Buffalo), so really, Canada struggles enough to hold onto the water they've got. Laïka 17:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Minneapolis gets its water from the Mississippi River (and filters it in Columbia Heights at this plant). That's getting a bit pedantic, though. The Mississippi is fed by a lot of glacial lakes in northern and central Minnesota, but now I'm getting really pedantic. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this page from the Canadian government. Canada has 20% of the world's freshwater (not 50%+), but most of that is "fossil water" -- left over from the Ice Age rather than renewed each year. Also, transferring water between basins can mess up the ecosystem by introducing invasive species like zebra mussels. -- Mwalcoff 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question asked about the number of lakes, not the total amount of lake water. If you look at a world map, like this one, you'll see that Canada really does have a large number of lakes in relation to its area, particularly in the Canadian Shield, where for the reasons Marco Polo explains above, there are a lot more lakes per unit area than in many other regions. Canada occupies just over 6% of the world's land area; if it really has a majority of the world's lakes, that'd mean there'd be 15 times lakes per unit area in Canada as in the rest of the world. That's a lot, but the more I think about it, the more plausible I think it is. However, I have no idea as to where such information would be tabulated in a manner allowing reliable comparison. --Anonymous, May 9, 2007, 09:40 (UTC).

The thing is, most of those lakes are very small. Think of Yellowknife, that has something like a dozen large and small lakes within its city boundaries. All those lakes on the maps are only the larger ones - for every lake on a decent map there are half a dozen too small to be shown. It's amazing if you fly, because there's a lake every couple of miles. --Charlene 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe that canada has the majority of lakes, it certainly could have scotland's share as there is no lakes [4] in scotland :) Perry-mankster 13:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

u.s. cities

Which U.S. cities has four teams of four major sports leagues:NBA, NHL, NFL,and MLB? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.130.94 (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

US cities with teams from four major sports.--droptone 03:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting Midway

For the past few weeks I've had a bit of an idea and I was wanting to contact Midway Games West specifically, mainly because it had to do with an idea for a Rush game. I was wishing to e-mail a suggestion letter to them, and see if they would contact me back. However, I am unsure how to contact them formally. Something that would get their attention. May someone assist? Just so-you-know my age is 15.Thank yous. --TV-VCR watch 04:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems Midway Games West is defunct. Bah!! Perhaps just Midway Games, or, more personal, Ed Logg? --TV-VCR watch 04:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists their contact information. --TotoBaggins 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which email do I use for what I was wanting? And who does Ed Logg work for now (i.e. Atari, Midway or something)? Thanks. --TV-VCR watch 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As it happens, I work for Midway - but this answer is in no way related to that fact).

Let me tell you this about the industry in general (not any one company - just in general) - and I'm sorry if it seems harsh: Games and toy and movie companies won't take ideas that people just send them in out of the blue. They won't pay for them - they won't read them - they don't want them - they don't tell you where to send them - if they get them in the mail, they go straight into the shredder without anyone with any creative control ever even knowing they arrived. The studio where I work doesn't even have the name of the company outside the front door because we don't want people dropping off ideas in the front lobby or accosting staff on their way through the parking lot with ideas!

The reason is that if you happened to have an idea that's even vaguely like something they are already doing - or have planned to do in the longer term - then you are going to claim that it was your idea - and that they ripped you off - and then there will be big ugly law suits and negative publicity. The fact is that games ideas are everywhere - there is absolutely no shortage of them. The problem for games companies isn't getting the ideas in the first place - it's deciding which of them can be built on time and in budget and which will sell well in their target demographic and on which generation of game console. So - please - don't send them to us - or to anyone else! I've seen the process that games companies go through to work up a new game, it's a science. It's never, ever, about someone sending in something clever - it being turned into a game and winning fame and fortune for the person who had the idea. (Probably the last time that happened was in 1985 with Alexey Pajitnov and Tetris - and that ended very nastily!).

If you have a passion to see your idea turn into a real game, I advise learning to program and to do artwork and to make it yourself. This sounds tough - but it's possible - that's how I got into the business. SteveBaker 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Postcard

Dear Sir/Mam;

I have a picture postcard that shows a platform worker at Kettering,Northamptonshire rail station releasing a basket of pigeons. Picture was taken in early 1950s and worker looks like my late wife brother as he worked there at this time and also did release pigeons. What I need to know,if possible, is the name and address of who and where printed so as to contact them.

THE BELOW IS WHAT IS PRINTED ON THE CARD

Real Photo Print Commemorative issue 2 No. 1 Basket of pigeons for release at Kettering.

Published By Rail Photo Print in association with Avon-AngliA Publications & Services

Thank you very much for any and all help that you can give me with this sarch.

Frederick W Knippel

Unable to sign with tildes as none on my keyboard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.0.210.251 (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, it helps not to put spaces or tabs in front of your lines, this is what creates those annoying boxes. Also if you don't have tildes on your keyboard you can simply PRESS the Sign your username: at the bottom of the edit screen, hope that helps you out:) . Vespine 06:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find an old address for Avon-AngliA (Avon-Anglia Publications, Annesley House, 21 Southside, Weston-super-Mare, Avon BS23 2QU), but they don't appear to have published anything since late 1980s, so they've almost certainly gone out of business. I also found a reference to Rail Photo Print here [5] which suggests that they were still around in 1987, but may have been in trouble: If you can find a copy of that magazine (BackTrack, issue 3, volume 1, 1987) it may have more information.

Otherwise, I'd say your best bet is to get in touch with someone who works in railway-related publishing (eg Ian Allan Ltd), and maybe you can find someone who knows someone who knows someone... Good luck. FiggyBee 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United airlines seat reservations

Due to equipment changes on some united flights i am taking in june i have to reserve new seats because of the different aircraft. Is it possible to call united by phone and reserve actual seats.--logger 06:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Marco polo 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them----petitmichel

British government

The name of Cabinet members in the ruling party British gouvernment 1980 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ejmcisaac (talk • contribs) 10:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Thatcher Ministry#Cabinet May 1979–September 1981. FiggyBee 12:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a bag

Hello, I recently bought a Zoom MRS 1608 digital recorder. I now wish to buy a bag for it however the only place I can find one is at [4] This site however does not cater for Uk esidents. Does anyone know where I can get a: World Tour Strong Side Gig Bag for Zoom MRS1608CD. Or any other relevant info thanks . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hm, I could've sworn I answered this... But since I can't find my answer in the archives, I'll yell it out again. I found a product similar to your request (sorry, not the same brand, although IMHO it makes absolutely no difference) on eBay here. For future reference, the digital recorder you need a bag for is usually referred to in the United States as a mixer; hence the eBay search for "Mixer bag." ^_^ V-Man - ^T/_C 02:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

van halen lyrics

the song goes like shaking, snapping her fingers or something...I can't find it :(... whats the name guys!? plz! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.232.99 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Are you thinking of Eddie Money's Shakin' ? --LarryMac 18:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

probably! I' gonna check! thank u!

omg it is thank u so much!

Happy to help :-) --LarryMac 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countries with "Democracy" in their title

Is it true that no countries which have "Democracy" in their title are (as!) democratic as most western nations? I was looking for a list of these, actually. 81.93.102.185 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article (with a list) at Democratic Republics. Additionally, List of countries has the full official name of all countries. FiggyBee 19:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste are real democratic republics; although Freedom House only rates them "partly-free",(see this image) they do hold democratic elections.(see this image) The only completely free (ie; comparable to the democracy associated with Europe or the US) Democratic Republic according to Freedom House is the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe. Laïka 21:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Helleniki Democratia is a free democracy, but for some reason its official name in English is the Hellenic Republic, not Democracy. Algebraist 10:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could hardly expect it to use the Latin word republic. —Tamfang 21:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re.:Mars > Censorship: Richard C. Hoagland

Why is Richard C. Hoagland's name verboten in the Mars article ? This can only give HIM more ammunition to claim that a conspiracy is going on. HE claims that the reason that most, if not all of the probes sent to Mars are being destroyed by a alien intelligence and/or by a automated defense system. Why is THAT also verboten ? 205.240.146.147 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All someone has to do is place his name in the article, planting a trap for Wikipedia, then it gets removed, springing the trap, when he/she notifies HIM that Wikipedia has been found to be part of some kind of conspiracy. 205.240.146.147 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could've asked this, but would be VERY RUDE about it. 205.240.146.147 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who, or what, is HIM? Is this a serious enquiry? --Bielle 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned in Cydonia (Mars), a more pertinent article for him. There isn't enough space in Mars to mention every theory about it; that is what sub-articles such as the one above are for. Laïka 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is in the business of writing about the truth - we don't have to report on every minority-held crackpot theory. Please read WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience to see our policies. Specifically: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." SteveBaker 01:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BEMs do it so they are not found out.hotclaws 09:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who blanked the MARS article ? There is no longer a article there. 205.240.146.147 23:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history, it was AndrewJ, or something like that, and it's been fixed. --LarryMac 23:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Editing

Why do you allow other people to edit your work here on Wikipidia? Couldn't somebody give false information? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.243.223.73 (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They could, yes. And it happens. But sooner or later the false information will get spotted and removed. Have a look at Wikipedia:Overview FAQ#How do you know if the information is correct.3F. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add some emphasis: "Why do you allow other people to edit your work here on Wikipedia?"...the you in that sentence is the same as the other people - all of us here are "other people". The only reason there are 1.7 million English language articles is precisely because the Wikipedia site allows anyone to edit it. The "us" who are writing it are the "others" whom you suspect ought to be locked out. The articles are (mostly) written by large numbers of people who come along and make teeny-tiny improvements - they aren't "our articles" - they belong to everyone. "Couldn't someone give false information?" - Yes. Emphatically so - they do it all the time. Fortunately there are more people - and more persistent people - interested in the truth than there are ill-informed people putting bad information in out of ignorance and idiots who but bad information in 'for the hell of it'. Mostly, bad information is spotted within minutes of it being added - and it gets corrected really quickly - sometimes it doesn't - but that's sufficiently rare that we still have a better accuracy score than the best non-free encyclopedias on the planet. Weird - surprising - remarkable - but true. Wikipedia pretty much "just happens" - it emerges from a sea of chaos just because most of humanity has a passion about passing on knowledge. SteveBaker 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of page with wrong stuff in it. They are the low-profile ones that not a lot of people edited yet, or the articles that are hobby horse for extermists on both sides so it is a see-saw of argument back and forth and the page never "stabilizes". Don't take my word for it, just search for "the neutrality of this article is disputed" or "unencyclopedics" in the text. And those are just the ones people noticed! NoClutter 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of it is, the more important an article is, the more frequently it will be viewed, and the quicker any inaccuracies will be fixed. Gross inaccuracies that lay dormant in an obscure article for months are no great concern. Vranak

This is a good question, what are you all doing on my wikipedia anyways? How did you get into my internets? 213.48.15.234 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Through the series of tubes. --Charlene 13:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT TUBES??? I THOUGHT THIS PLACE WAS A BIG TRUCK!?? 213.48.15.234 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no - you're thinking of the InterWeb. SteveBaker 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG - we have an article about that: Interweb. SteveBaker 19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a website

I'm sorry that I have to bug you guys with my clinically brain-dead questions, but I really have to know something.

How in the world do I redirect to any website of my desire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.18.90.138 (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is unclear exactly what you are trying to do, maybe you could clarify your query a bit? The short answer is you configure the webserver or webpage to tell the requesting browser to go to another site. Http_redirection#Techniques has some info. This question would have been more appropriate on the Computing Desk. -- Diletante 23:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, in case you meant "how do I provide a link to a site outside of Wikipedia from within Wikipedia", do this:

See this link: [http://www.google.com/].

To get this:

See this link: [6].

StuRat 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]