Miscellaneous desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

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.

November 19

What do South Asian peasantry wear to protect themselves from the sun?

In Southeast Asia the rural folk wear conical hats, so surely South Asians also have protection?

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "South Asain"? Indians? "South Central Asia" like the middle-east?

PS: It's better if you use internal links like [[User:Lotsofissues|lots of issues]] (Result: lots of issues) than external links like you're doing. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modest South Asian women (not necessarily peasants) wear their dupatta so that it covers their hair. If you click on the article, you'll see that the woman in the right of the top photo is using hers as a sunshade. --M @r ē ino 21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot! In some situations, it's perfectly acceptable for a man to soak a turban in cold water, which protects him against the sun's heat (although not so much against harsh sunlight). --M @r ē ino 21:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does one fart on command?

How does one fart on command? What preparation is reguried? Thank you for your help in this matter. Weasly (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This requires considerable practice and constant vigilance on the part of the practicant. The first stage is the obtaining of the gaseous emission. Usually this amounts to a slow accumulation of small amounts until it is felt (both literally and metaphorically) that sufficient is available when required. However, this brings us to a quite difficult part of the practice, the emitting of small amounts to retain a reasonable state of digestive comfort but not so much as to deplete the available store. This will normally be held in the appropriate receptacle known as the (..........) insert name as required. On the command being received the participant should be in a position to oblige. However, under no circumstances should the command be obeyed with any force or vigour. The reasons for this are firstly that the deposit of gas may be depleted too quickly and the participant will be unable to repeat the order if required and secondly there may be laundry implications.

I hope that helps. Richard Avery (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Flatulist. Le Pétomane, a famous French flatulist, gave himself an enema everyday to ensure that there were no unpleasant smells, but then his ability was unusual, in that he could fart indefinitely (he could take in air through the anus, rather than having to rely on the digestive system to produce the gases). Professional flatulence was once a very profitable business (Le Pétomane was paid more than almost any other celebrity, while Roland the Farter was given a 30 acre manor in exchange for farting once a year at Christmas!) Laïka 13:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it by "inhaling" so to speak into, the intestines from the outside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.102.55 (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary vs foil razors?

Due to sensitive skin and labourious nature of manual shaving, I'm thinking of giving electric razors a try. Would get a chargable and washable razor. If they could shave other areas such as armpit, nads etc that would be an added bonus. Did a little research about them. However, a few questions remain and a new questions have popped up. First about foil razors: Are the ones with 2 or 3 foils better than the one with 1 foil?. Do the foils last longer than rotary cutters?. Do they have a larger shaving surface than rotary razors?.

and about the rotary razors: do they offer a better shave than foils? are they better for people who get razor bumps?

about both: what to look for when choosing one? and what to avoid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.46.26 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I've found (rotary) electric shavers much more irritating than manual shaving with a safety. FiggyBee (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get as good a shave from a rotary than from a safety (although I don't shave at all at the moment. It's important to keep up on the maintenance on a rotary, or the performance is quite less than optimal. Steewi (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use a foil shaver and it is nearly as good as a hand razor. Apparantly, the foil ones give a closer shave and I would have thought they would also cause less irritation than a rotary one.

GaryReggae (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Earphones

How does wireless earphones work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.225.37 (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, it's a transmitter/receiver pair. The precise technology can vary, but solutions are found in the same frequency bands as cordless phones and other consumer wireless devices. Bluetooth, for instance, runs around 2.4 GHz, and is commonly used by newer wireless headsets. — Lomn 14:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluetooth is a bit more subtle than just a transmitter/receiver pair - the headset has to negotiate with the phone (or whatever) to agree on how they will communicate. Bluetooth is a digital network protocol. This is what allows (for example) 10 people crammed together in an elevator to all use their headsets at once without interfering with each other. SteveBaker (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[[Media:[reply]

Measure of Effects of Alcoholic beverages

Is there a boundary for Alcoholic beverages effects(immediate effect) which lower than that percent,the harms and effects will be wiped out?Flakture (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not known. Several recent studies have suggested that moderate consumption of alcohol (on the order of 1 drink per day) may actually reduce a person's risk of certain diseases (including heart disease). It may be a balancing question—is there a tradeoff between slightly increased liver toxicity and decreased risk of cardiovascular illness?

Also worth noting is that a small amount of ethanol is present naturally in the body, produced by various mechanisms: [1]. Is this endogenous alcohol detrimental? Would we be better or worse off if it weren't present? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the immediate effects or the effects of long-term consumption? Rmhermen (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I mean immediate effects.Flakture (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this site okay to use...?

Someone Is Missing -

If someone you know comes up missing... This website will supply you with the following; A web address to use immediately Web space, and our abilities for as long as you need Taxa (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking a question, or placing an advertisement? If you're doing the latter, you're pretty foolish; this page will be archived in a few days and generate very little traffic thereafter. --M @r ē ino 16:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're either a) asking if the site is legit, and will do what it says rather than run off with any info you give them or b) asking if it's okay to use the site (as a reference?) in Wikipedia. 130.88.140.7 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the advertisement stuff. That said, I'm very skeptical of the "we'll be a household name and deter would-be kidnappers!" claptrap. They won't, it won't, and there are far more visible forms of media already available (namely, local TV news). I suppose that every little thing might help in a missing-persons case, but this looks like a waste of time. — Lomn 16:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From first impressions, the fact that it is a very amateurish looking website rings my internal alarm bells. Also reading the terms and conditions on the site, a full privacy policy is mentioned in passing but I can't seem to find one anywhere in the domain. The site doesn't seem to have any formal links/agreements with any Law Enforcement agencies and seems to me to be run purely by a group of volunteers. The 'List a Person' page/form is also not secure. There are other, more official sites such as theyaremissed.org (USA), missingpeople.org.uk (UK) (and many others) which are run by charities or law enforcement agencies that do this kind of thing a lot better. (in my opinion). 81.76.37.180 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that members of the public are going to go there on a regular basis to see if anyone they know the whereabouts of just happens to be listed missing. If a lost child shows up needing help - I trust that one's first call would be to 911 - not to go look at some web site just on the offchance of seeing who they belong to! That being the case, it's hard to imagine that this is going to be of much use. On the other hand, desperate parents, looking for anything they can possibly do to locate a lost child will get some comfort from the feeling that they did one more thing with a chance of helping in the search - so I suppose it's not a complete waste. I'm skeptical that the site managed to locate 3 missing persons - I suspect that what they are really saying is that three missing persons on their site have been located (but not because of their publicity perhaps). At worst, this site may be merely well-meaning but ineffective - at best, if it helps in locating just one person then it's more than worth all of the effort to maintain it. It's hard to imagine any kind of scam that might be involved. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For 911, of course, read "their local emergency telephone number". Funny, I'd gotten the impression Steve was British (their number would be 999 or 112). --Anon, edited 18:08 UTC, Nov. 19.

(I am British - but I live in Texas - and the habit of saying 911 is hard to break! Fortunately, most non-Americans know what 911 is.) SteveBaker (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Several people already mentioned holes in this site. If you ever need to coordinate the search for a missing person. Get together with media and law enforcement officials and get out an official Amber Alert if you're in the United States and the missing person is a kid. People are more likely to watch a website if it is part of an official missing persons organization. Small organizations won't do much to boost visibility. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayhawk, Dolphin team colors

I was curious about the team colors for the Jayhawks after seeing their football game highlights, and it brought to my mind a similar question for the NFL's Miami Dolphins. The jayhawks' page says blue and red, but is it a certain shade of blue? Because it almost looks closer to purple at times, by what I remember of their basketball games. other times, it's more clearly blue. It's a *very* deep Royal, anyway; don't know what you'd call it. The settings were not changed on the TV's contrast, brightness, etc. This brought to my mind a similar question for the Dolphins. At times, I recall their non-white uniforms look bluer, and at other times greener. The blue is clearly Aqua like your site lists (and like the blue of the dolphin on their helmet), but the other looked kind of washed out, meaning the couple times I saw that on TV, it might have been an effect from washing that made them look a little different.4.68.248.130 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teams tend to have fairly specific (and sometimes trademarked) colors used. The St. Louis Rams, for instance, moved from blue and yellow to "New Century Gold" and "Millennium Blue" when they changed color schemes around 2000. There's probably a specific Pantone designation for each of those. On the other hand, there are cases like the Tennessee Volunteers where, despite being readily identified by "orange", at least three different shades of orange have been on a uniform at once.[2] — Lomn 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always believed that teams change their colours regularly in order to improve sales of replica uniforms to their fans - so this may be a deliberate change, introduced to make every fan want to buy "this season's" uniforms. But it's also possible that the more subtle differences you are seeing are due to different stadium lighting (day versus night games, one football field versus another) - or in the automatic or manual adjustments made during TV production at the whim of producers and cameramen - or even whether you are watching TV with the room lights on or off. Colour perception is a complicated matter and it's really easily messed up. So if even if it was something as subtle as the colour of the grass beind different in the various cases, you might be subject to the Same color illusion for example. SteveBaker (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want very detailed information about team colors, I recommend the Society for Sports Uniform Research. (I have chatted often on another forum with the person who runs this site, and his reputation for completeness and accuracy is excellent.) — Michael J 21:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top of a tall tower

Is there a name/word/article given to the act of bottleing up ones emotions for years before going to the top of something tall and starting to shoot randomly with a rifle. An/or what people should do instead, if not Ill let you know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened very few times in recent history - so it's unlikely there is a clear, simple name for it - we certainly have articles about some (if not all) of the times it's happened. (Charles Whitman, the Beltway sniper attacks and of course the John F. Kennedy assassination come to mind). In terms of what a deranged person might do instead - there are plenty of options that don't involve killing a bunch of innocent people and then end up (typically) with a slow and painful death (or a lifetime in jail) after being gunned down by police. Psychotherapy would probably be the most obvious (and perhaps, extreme) alternative - but there are many others. Simply yelling and screaming from a suitably high (and hopefully deserted) place would probably be just as effective at getting rid of pent up rage and frustration - taking up adrenaline-depleting extreme sports might be another. After throwing a car violently around an autocross track several times, one feels an inner calmness that's hard to beat - it's a cheap and fairly safe sport. SteveBaker (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend moderate-intensity aerobic exercise as a way of releasing tension. I'm not sure of a word for bottling up one's emotions, but the apathetic free feeling beforehand can be described as fey. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern popular parlance would term this type of activity as going postal, the formal name for it in some circles is a killing spree or running amok. 81.76.37.180 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotic break?--droptone (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, a subset of a nervous breakdown Steewi (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. and Mrs. Jane Doe

Amanda Gamble writes that a couple must always be referred to under the man's name if they are to be called Mr. and Mrs., and that "Mrs. Jane Doe" is only used for divorced women. Do progressive and feminist etiquetticians agree with this? Similarly, do they allow a man to call himself "Mr. Jane Doe" if he is less famous than his wife? Also, do same-sex couples become "Mr. and Mr." and "Mrs. and Mrs.", or "Messrs." and "Mdms."? Neon Merlin 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a Mr. Jane Doe style but the rest sounds the right. With people concerned with feminist etiquette (e.g. my wife) you use Ms. Jane Doe even if they are married. I'm not sure that this is widely followed, though, but if my wife insists on it being proper etiquette it probably is, though I'm usually mystified by such customs and somehow grew up ignorant of them. No clue about same-sex couples—the rules of etiquette are, as you have no doubt noted, extremely heteronormal and favor the old idea of a woman as a man's property, so applying it to homosexual relationships is going to somewhat upend the whole project in my view. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's outdated and undoubtedly sexist - but the idea is that the woman "takes the mans name" - and that includes both first and second name in this case. So "Mr & Mrs John Doe" is correct. It is presumed that if the woman doesn NOT wish to take her husbands name then it'll be "Mr John Doe & Mrs Jane Throatwarbler-Mangrove". The option of the man taking his wifes name is presumably also possible - but I've never heard of it happening. SteveBaker (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little odd Steve - In my experience not many women call themselves Mrs <Maiden name>. FiggyBee (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably Ms <Maiden name> - but that doesn't really change what I was saying. SteveBaker (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old enough to remember my mother being referred to as "Mrs (Dad's given name) (Dad's surname)". It still happens in very formal circumstances like the awarding of British Honours. If the famous writer Jane Smith is awarded an honour, and she's married to Norman Nonentity, her name will appear in the Honours List as "Mrs Norman Nonentity (Jane Smith)". The idea of Mrs being attached to a wife's given name (Jane) is relatively recent, but is now almost universal, and only the most abject pedants would take exception to it. That's where "Mrs" is used at all, which is increasingly uncommon - "Ms" is far more common these days, for married and unmarried women alike, and for good reasons imo. Or, indeed, no title at all. The "Mr Jane Doe" style is merely jocular; I suppose the otherwise non-notable Larry Fortensky might have been referred to occasionally as "Mr Elizabeth Taylor" after someone asked "Larry who?", but his actual name was always (Mr) Larry Fortensky.

On the same-sex thing, and again it would only apply in very formal circumstances, I guess if Sir Elton John was invited to a Buckingham Palace garden party and partners were also invited, the invitation would be addressed to "Sir Elton John and Mr David Furnish". I'm sure there would be cases where one same-sex married person has changed their surname to their partner's, or where they've both adopted the same different surname (eg. Barry Blue married Robert Red and they become Barry Purple and Robert Purple), but I can't think of any notable cases. I guess it'd be "Mr Barry Purple and Mr Robert Purple", not "Mr and Mr Barry and Robert Purple". -- JackofOz (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One further thought. Mrs Jane Doe is used not only for divorced women but for widowed women. The protocol I had drummed into me, and I still abide by with elderly people, was that:

whenever I wrote to a married woman who uses Mrs (and they all did back then), for example, to thank my grandmother for Christmas/birthday presents I had probably already broken, the envelope was addressed to "Mrs (husband's name or initial) (husband's surname)" - eg. if my grandparents were Ambrose and Felicity Splinge, I'd write to grandma Felicity as "Mrs A Splinge" or "Mrs Ambrose Splinge"
but if grandpa Ambrose were to die (because, heaven forbid, divorce was not only unknown and unthinkable in my family but so unmentionable that the protocol didn't even contemplate such a circumstance; seriously, the first divorced person I ever met was when I was about 16), then I'd write to Mrs F Splinge or Mrs Felicity Splinge.

Mind you, this was back before "Ms" had been invented, and Ms has swept away many or most of these notions, but people of my surviving aunts' generation (one's just turned 90, and they're all at least 85; all widowed) appreciate these sorts of things from their (obviously) favourite nephew.

Also, when writing to a couple, the husband's name takes precedence not only in the surname itself but also in the order of titles - Mr & Mrs A Splinge, never Mrs & Mr. It's easy to work out why it's that way: our society is patrilinear - it's short for "Mr Ambrose Splinge (the head of the family) and his wife, whatever her name is". But it's also odd given that the culture in which these conventions thrived was also the culture that insisted on "ladies first", an audience is always addressed as "Ladies and gentlemen", never "Gentlemen and ladies", etc. Funny, I'd never noticed that anomaly before. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ick. I've talked it over with my boyfriend (silly git won't propose until he can work fulltime and he's not graduated yet) and I've told him while I'm willing to take his last name, Mrs James <lastname> just sounds bad to me. Is that REALLY that far out of the norm these days? Kuronue | Talk 18:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to forget the formalities. Just call yourself "<your first name> <his surname>". If some form asks what your title is, choose between Ms and Mrs (but use it consistently because some computer systems think that Ms Gertrude Goose-Creature is a different person from Mrs Gertrude Goose-Creature). You get to decide what you want to be known as, nobody else (with due respect to the sanctity of marriage and the attendant sensitivities). -- JackofOz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the article about the frech national motto liberté is mistranslated

i am a french speaker and i have become aware that the article of liberté egalité et fraternité has been mistranslated liberté is not liberty but freedom i am not a registered user of wikipedia so could someone edit this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.48.9 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What meaning of the word 'liberty' do you think is intended here, that is not 'freedom'? Skittle (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare the meanings of the English words "Liberty" and "Freedom" in Wiktionary, you'll find that both definitions for freedom are included in the many meanings of liberty. All of the other meanings of liberty that are relevent here contain the word 'free' or 'freedom'. So as far as Wiktionary is concerned, they mean exactly the same thing (unless you are using "liberty" in the sense of a sailor's vacation or "taking a liberty" as in breaking a social convention). So I think you can translate liberté either way - and given the choice, it makes sense to pick the word that has the closest sound to the French word. Anyway, my wife is native-born French and has spent a good fraction of her life in various English speaking countries and she says: "Either liberty or freedom is OK but liberty sounds better." So, no - please don't change the article - you wouldn't want to upset my wife...trust me on this one! SteveBaker (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

side note: one does not have to be a registered user to edit an article (except when it's protected, which the article on france isn't) Cryo921 (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]