Miscellaneous desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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 20

Illegal/Navy

Can an Illegal Immigrant join the Navy,or the air force,army,marines,coast-guards etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.24 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im almost 100% to join the the U.S militaary you have to be a LEGAL U.S citizen. If you try to join at least one of these 3 will happen.

1. You will be detained then proably deported
2. possibly granted a greencard or something
3. Told you cant join and be let go.

Im no expert on what will happen though so takes theses with a grain of salt if you are illegal and try to join. Esskater11 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to be a citizen, but you have to be a legal resident. My last ship had a couple of non-citizens. BTW, you generally do have to be a citizen to hold a security clearance and not having a clearance limits your job opportunities within the Navy (and other services)> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.41 (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't have to be a Citizen - and serving with the US military puts you on a fast-track to getting citizenship when you leave the service. There was a piece on NPR the other day about non-citizens who were in the US military and had been killed in Iraq - there was some kind of scandal about the subsequent fate of their families (who were also non-citizens)...I forget the details. However, I'm also doubtful that they'd accept an illegal immigrant. It might be possible to go back to ones country of origin and apply to join from there - since everything would then be legal, maybe that's OK. But I don't know for sure. You'd need to check with a military recruitment person. SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck i always mix the words citiznes and residents up. Have you ever been thinkinh of one word then said another well...Esskater11 04:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't. A neighbour of mine joined the US army (I'm in Ireland) and got citezenship soon after leaving. He apparently got a great penision too--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An essay about the well-meaning but misguided

I once ran across an essay/commentary on the problem of 'difficult users' or 'challenging users'. I'm fairly certain it was once linked to by a Wikipedia editor in a discussion, but I don't recall where the essay was hosted. (It seems like a Meatball Wiki kind of thing, but I can't locate it there.)

Generally speaking, it discussed the issue of individuals whose intentions were unquestionably good, but whose continued participation in or contributions to a project or community were ultimately detrimental. It examined the conflicting interests at work, and acknowledged that in some cases a community must sometimes eject a good-faith but incompatible contributor.

If I recall correctly, the specific case study looked at a mailing list for some sort of open-source software project. Most of the major contributors to the list were developers who were actually cranking out code, but one of the most-frequent messsagers was a kibitzer. It was widely agreed that he was a nice guy, but he wasn't writing code and his frequent messages were a distraction to the developers. After a number of pleas to him to reduce his frequency of posting and/or increase his contribution to the work, the decision was finally taken to ban him from the mailing list.

Ultimately, one of the developers went so far as to telephone the kibitzer, to explain matters. Despite their best efforts, the kibitzer never really understood why he'd been banned.

If anyone has seen this essay, or can point me to one on a similar theme, I'd be much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenOfAllTrades (talk • contribs) 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein and Terrorism

Hello:

I am a bit confused about Saddam Hussein's connection to terrorism. I was wondering if someone could answer the following questions I had regarding this:

1. Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist? 2. Did Saddam Hussein fund terrorism? (If so, did he fund terrorism in Iraq, specifically?)

Thanks,

--Vikramkr (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No and no. Saddam cracked down on terrorist groups, as when you're a secular dictator of a country you don't want a bunch of religious extremists running around blowing things up. In fact, we have a whole article on this at Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda! -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mistake "terrorism" as being synonymous with "al Qaeda" or even "religious fundamentalists". There have been terrorists long before al Qaeda (e.g. Shining Path, Organisation de l'armée secrète, Pablo Escobar, Timothy McVeigh) and there are many branches of terrorism today unrelated to al Qaeda or Islam at all. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, though I don't know much about it, is that at various times Saddam Hussein's government did support terrorist groups operating outside of Iraq. They did not include al Qaeda, and I'm not sure whether these groups were effective or how long this support lasted (or in what form). If I recall he "sponsored" (again, of what sort?) terrorism against Israel and Iran in particular, but again I'm not sure of the details off-hand. See, e.g., Abu Nidal, which has some lines in it about the Iraqis sponsoring attacks against the Saudis, or the Iranian Embassy Siege. He would not have funded terrorism in his own state—terrorism is destabilizing and Saddam's state was characterized by (brutal) attempts at order. As for the question of whether he was a "terrorist", it depends a lot on what you mean by that. Personally I don't think it's the most useful analytical term by itself. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today the word terrorist has no real meaning anymore. Anyone who kills alot is a terrorist. Saddam was a tyranical dictator who ordered the deaths of thousands of men and women to stay in power. But anyway, Props to 24.147 for bringing up pablo escobar. hes probaly the worst narco terrorist ever. Esskater11 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, the word "terrorist" lacks a clear meaning. However, Saddam Hussein, by nearly all accounts a brutal dictator, was most famously accused of terrorism and ties to terrorism by the U.S. government. Critics of the U.S. government, however, cite evidence in support of allegations that the U.S. government has itself sponsored terrorism. Marco polo (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great book that recently came out is Mike Davis, Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb. Highly recommended for those wanting to think about the global history of terrorism; it is a short book, a well-written book, a "fun" book, a depressing book. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussein used to make payments of US$10-25K to the families of suicide bombers who had attacked Israeli targets, presumably to annoy the Israelis and raise his own image in the Arab world (source). When the GOP was beating the drum to attack Iraq in 2001-2003, it often would conflate his sponsorship of this kind of terrorism with having something to do with 9/11. As .187 notes, all terrorists aren't on the same team with Osama bin Laden playing the role of Cobra Commander. --Sean 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos the Jackal had some association with Saddam but with anything to do with Carlos the details aren't exactly clear. Rmhermen (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an editorial

I am looking for an editorial or article from the Washington Post on Jim Gilmore on his tenure as governor of Virginia when Gilmore announced his presidential candidacy in December 2006 when Gilmore decided to run for president. The article or editorial was very critical of Gilmore and compared him to the current occupant of the White House. My google searches of wapo have been unsuccessful. Can you help me? --Blue387 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest going to your local library and asking them if they have microfiched archives of the Post? Or even, possibly, have kept back issues from 2006. Corvus cornix (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tylenol vs no-name

Looking at a package of Tylenol painkillers, the only medicinal ingredients in the pill is acetaminophen. Would that mean that the rest of the pill has no medical effect and does not contribute to making one feel better? Alternatively, if one compares a pill of Tylenol with a pill of a lesser-known brand of acetaminophen painkiller, assuming the active ingredient is present in equal amounts in both pills, would it have the same effect in suppressing headaches and pain? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the label on the lesser-known brand is accurate, then yes. Marco polo (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always buy generic-brand painkillers, because they're just enormously less expensive, and they still work just fine. --Masamage ♫ 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pharmacist, when I asked a similar question, told me that the generic-brands are usually equally effective, but have less control over the production (so 200mg might be somewhere between 180mg and 220mg), because they are manufactured more cheaply. They will also likely have a different make up in the non-active ingredients, which can be important for people with allergies. Steewi (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was some upset about generic versions of drugs recently (not Tylenol) because the generic version didn't have the same time-release packaging that the original had. So the branded version would produce a gradual supply of the drug over several hours but the generic equivelant would dump the whole amount into your system in a couple of minutes. For some drugs this doesn't matter - but for others it's really serious. Anyway - those packaging details don't appear in the "active ingredient" list - so two versions of the medication could appear to be identical - but in practice operate very differently. SteveBaker (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, aside from the amount of acetaminophen and flavour, are there any other difference between Tylenol for children and adult Tylenol? Acceptable (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would check the package in that case. It may be a lower dosage, or using a time-release system so it absorbs more slowly in the body. -- Kesh (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taco bell meat!!!

Ok i LOVEE taco bell, i mean love. i mean love in the sort of way that if taco bell was a girl id impregnat it. But i always eat tacos and everytime i eat the meat part im like theres no fucking way this is real meat. Sooooo ANYWAY is the meat in thier tacos real of like odd mystery meat thing. Esskater11 02:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but your desire to impregnate meat reminds me of Portnoy's Complaint, in which, at least in the book, Portnoy masturbates with the use of a piece of liver. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s Philip Roth for you. Has he ever written a book without a major sex scene? --S.dedalus (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ground beef. What else would it be? See [1]. —Keenan Pepper 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking up the local regulations for the definition of 'meat'. In Australia (if I remember correctly), in a meat pie, for example, 'meat' can include a whole list of animals (including some surprising ones, like bison, possum, and so on), and 'meat' only has to apply to 25% of the ingredients, the rest of which can be made up of gravy and textured vegetable protein. Steewi (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this statement (warning- pdf file), Taco Bell meat does indeed has beef as its first ingredient, seasoned with lots of natural and not-so-natural flavors and some coloring. I was fascinated to see cocoa powder on the ingredients list; that's the secret ingredient that makes the meat in Cincinnati chili so yummy, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After you cook the meat, grind it in a blender until it is the correct texture. This helps to keep the meat in the taco shell on buritto wrap, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.64.190 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mawson Station Antarctica

Could you guys please find me a logo or symbol representing Mawson Station in Antarctica? 58.163.140.103 (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked all over their website - and waded through a few hundred Google images hits - there doesn't seem to be anything like that. If they have a logo, they're awfully shy about showing it! The nearest things I found were general Australian Antarctic mission logos and some crappy commemorative coin. SteveBaker (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be it http://www.virtualantarctica.com/mawson2000/images/station_logo.gif (from [2]). There's also this generic Australian Government Department logo - "Australian Government - Department of the Environment and Water Resources - Australian Antarctic Division" - but it's rather small and not really worth putting in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.82.107 (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad. I found a postmark on page 11 of this from Australia Post (you'd better have a fast connection), and an image of the coin from the Perth Mint mentioned above. Neither is the logo. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialization of fictional objects

What was the first fictional object (if we don't count religious texts as fiction, and therefore don't count things like the True Cross) to be turned into a real product and mass-marketed? Was it the Necronomicon? Neon Merlin 07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it quite meets your criteria, but you may want to check out The Archies. They started out within the comics alright, but it's debatable whether they actually were a real group as such. Your question could be quite broad. If National Periodicals sold Superman capes in 1940, would that qualify? I don't know for a fact that they did, but there was a ton of Superman commercialization at the time, so I'd be surprised if they didn't. It wouldn't have been marketed as the "real" Superman's cape, however. Matt Deres (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about cans of Krusty Cola? I'm sure that there are various other Simpsons related merchandise which originated from the show. I think also there were some Jurassic Park items too. 83.104.131.135 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and, adding to the proof that Wikipedia does have an article for everything there's this List_of_products_in_The_Simpsons 83.104.131.135 (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course - Wonka Bar's first appeared for sale in 1971. I would imagine that post-1940 (when we entered the television age) there are lots and lots of these. Pre-1940? we'll have to see what others can think of. 81.77.230.15 (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The waterbed may meet your requirements for being a fictional object that was later marketed. See Robert A. Heinlein for more. Dismas|^(talk) 14:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H.G. Wells predicted atom bombs in The World Set Free (1914). I believe da Vinci drew some helicopter-type things. --Sean 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though they weren't really anything like what atomic bombs ended up being. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which in turn makes me think of Jules Verne. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really got anything to do with commercial exploitation, though, has it? Whereas Fly Fishing by J.R. Hartley... 64.236.80.62 (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I did just say it made me think of... but you are correct. And good example. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, atom bombs haven't been mass-marketed (yet...) shoy (^words _words) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they sort of have been. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, to summarize: What's the earliest thing we have so far? The first actual published Necronomicon was in 1973, so Wonka bars at 1971 knock that one out. Anything from The Simpsons is beaten by those two. The Archies...I dunno - iffy at best. Da Vinci's helicopter first flew as a practical vehicle in 1942 - but had been used as a toy by the Chinese in 400BC (1800 years before Da Vinci) - it's also arguable that it wasn't "fictional" - Da Vinci designed something that he believed would really be possible - so it wasn't technically fictional. Waterbeds were around in 1871 - long before Heinlein - so they were real before they were fiction and therefore out of the running. Fly Fishing by J.R.Hartley (whilst an EXCELLENT choice!) is far too recent. Atom bombs are from 1945 - and we might argue about whether they were sold - but Superman's cape in 1940 beats out everything so far (including any claim The Archies might have and that dubious helicopter).

It's hard to imagine that there isn't some example before 1940...but right now, I'm stuck for ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 1939 cut-out paper doll set from Gullivers Travels. (Actually, I'm not sure this counts as a fictional object "made real") SteveBaker (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coonskin caps arose from the popularity of the Davy Crockett shows in the 1950s. I had one. Corvus cornix (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those were never fictional objects though - the native Americans were wearing them long before Davy Crockett famously didn't wear one at the Alamo. Yes - there is no evidence whatever that he wore one - it's an urban legend stemming from movies that depicted him that way. Still, I have to be careful what I say - Texans don't like to hear that - it'll upset them tomorrow while they are celebrating how the early "American" settlers saved the Indians from starvation by giving them turkey at thanksgiving. :-P SteveBaker (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the creation of a new fictional name that is now commonplace count ? If so WENDY was invented for the sister in Peter Pan90.14.21.247 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

And "Kim" comes from Show Boat. The character of Kim was born on the boat at the place where Kentucky, Illinois and Missouri come together. The book that the play is based on even mentions how everybody considered her name ugly because it was so unusual. Corvus cornix_talk 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the provenance of that particular character's name. And maybe it was very unusual for a girl at that time, but there would have been plenty of boy Kims by then, certainly in Britain and India. Rudyard Kipling's novel Kim predated Edna Ferber's novel by about 25 years. It was a huge seller in most English-speaking parts (which may or may not include the deep south). -- JackofOz (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toy soldiers, dolls, and stuffed animals have been around forever, and in general many of them are taken from fiction, so I think your question is bounded by your definition of "mass-marketing." How about the Velveteen Rabbit? -Arch dude (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Velveteen Rabbit would only count when someone actually started making velveteen rabbits - and I suspect that (just like toy soldiers, dolls and other stuffed animals), the actual toy existed BEFORE the fiction. Perhaps someone started making and selling actual velveteen rabbits that look exactly like the fictional one - but I don't see any evidence of that before 1940 - so Superman Capes are still the winners. It seems crazy that we can't come up with a clear pre-1940's example though...it's driving me nuts! SteveBaker (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy bear, 1902. -Arch dude (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is a teddy bear a fictional object made real? SteveBaker (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a winner! My son takes the credit for this one: Chinese dragons and those dragon costumes that the Dragon dancers wear. They date back to the Han Dynasty - maybe 200 BC. In 4700 BC the Hongshan culture had carved Jade dragons so the fictional dragon long pre-dates the actual costume. SteveBaker (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ultimate answer could well depend on the meaning of "mass-marketed". There might have been instances of neolithic humans creating, for example, decorative bowls featuring fictional characters from cave paintings, then marketing them to some extent in order to increase their barter value. Also, I suspect there might be some kind of example from Ancient Egypt, though I can't think of anything... on a slightly related note, it seems that the concept of a Phoenix is surprisingly ancient and universal. 130.88.79.77 (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Sloper was marketed extensively in the late 19th century Britain, the Yellow Kid a little later in the US. Hiding T 14:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Train Disappearences

We've all heard of disappearing ships (Mary Celeste and USS Cyclops (AC-4)) and disappearing planes (flight 19 etc.)

But have there been any train disappearences where the train completely vanished without a trace (like the USS Cyclops) or was found completely deserted (like the Mary Celeste)? --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 12:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom vehicle article mentions a ghost train in Indonesia in 2000, but the external link is in a language not English. A Google search for the incident turned up nothing. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a sci-fi short story (which I would have sworn was by Isaac Asimov) about a small change in the Boston subway network that results in the network gaining infinite connectivity. As a result, a train disappears on the network. I can't find the story with Google, but if I can remember and no one beats me to it, I'll post more about it when I get home.

Atlant (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to A Subway Named Mobius by Armin Joseph Deutsch. Algebraist 15:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Asimov was a good guess: Asimov was a friend of Deutsch's and encouraged him to have the story published. That's why it was set in Boston, where they lived. The movie version was set in Buenos Aires, because that's where the filmmakers lived. --Anonymous, 05:22 UTC, November 21, 2007.

That's the one -- I'm pretty certain that it was (re?)published in an anthology edited by Asimov; I still haven't had a chance to dig my low-tech paper copy. (on edit) Ahh, I see that it was also published in Fantasia Mathematica so perhaps I have two paper copies of it!

Atlant (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but I'm only interested in real-world examples. Completely fictional accounts really don't help me.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I moved WF's response to avoid confusion, which would not have arisen if not for Atlant's unusual habit of signing on a separate line. —Tamfang (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In Back to the Future 3 they had a train they use to go back to the future that to those who remained will have looked like it disappeared, though I guess that's not going to count...ny156uk (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the train doesn't go forward in time, just the DeLorean which is pushed by the train. The train ended up at the bottom of Eastwood Gulch. Donald Hosek (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - Ny156uk is thinking of the time-travelling locomotive at the very end of the movie when they are all back in the present-day. SteveBaker (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unrealistic request - I mean, ships can be wildly off-course and sink without trace and planes too can crash in the ocean or in places so remote and far from their flight path that they are never found again. But a train can only be on the tracks or somewhere very close by - how could it possibly vanish? A 'ghost' train travelling on with nobody on board is also unlikely because all modern trains have elaborate systems to ensure that they stop if the engineer isn't right there at the controls (See dead man's handle). SteveBaker (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As SteveBaker says, trains usually leave evidence when they "disappear" from the network.

Atlant (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing a report on vehicular disappearances. I found many stories (sourced and unsourced) on disappearing cars, ships, planes, mobile homes, motorcycles, hell even bikes. But I haven't been able to find any on trains; maybe its because of the reason you list above, but I feel there must something out there regarding trains. And it doesn't necessarily have to be modern.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 18:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like trains (and buses) are pretty safe then. But seriously I have never heard of such a thing. Googling "train that disappeared" throws up some interesting references, mostly fictional of course, but there is the classic case of that train full of Nazi gold....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 18:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it is possible that all the people on a train or even a train it’s self could disappear without a trace if “foul play” (what a ridicules euphemism) was involved. It must have happened somewhere. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not true that it must have happened somewhere. I would go so far as to say that it's absurd to think it could have. --Anonymous, 05:26 UTC, November 21, 2007.

Really? According to Many-worlds interpretation this event must have taken place a nearly infinite number of times. :) More in our plane of existence, it seems likely that the fog of war and its accompanying confusion would have resulted in the disappearance of a train or two. Perhaps a military historian could help. --S.dedalus (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a train disappeared briefly in 1903. [3] --S.dedalus (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on! The train was a few hours late - you can't count that as 'disappeared'! SteveBaker (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the Mary Celese didn't disappear, the people on board did, but I get your general drift. I know of a case where an armoured personnel carrier disappeared. A friend of mine was in the Australian Army Reserve some years ago, and he told me that while out on a training exercise one weekend, they managed to lose an entire tank. The fun part was reporting it to their senior officer; they decided to just add it to a long list of minor items scheduled to be written off - like boxes of paper clips, etc. They did this, the officer never noticed the new entry, he approved the whole list for write-off, and nothing more was ever said about it. I never got an explanation that washed, but my friend has always swore this was the literal truth. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search for full text books with occurrences of the words "train" and "disappear" shows many instances of trains disappearing: around the bend, around the curve, up the glen, or simply in the distance. In [4] a train disappeared beneath the water when a storm blew down the bridge.. Presumably it vanished from sight without a trace in each instance. In [5] a train disappeared for three weeks: then it was found on a siding. Then there was Byron [6]: "'Let the chamber be clear'd.'- The train disappear'd." For a mystery story dealing with a train's physical disappearance, see "Snowball in July [“The Phantom Train”; Ellery Queen], (ss) This Week Aug 31 1952 ,Ellery Queen Mystery Magazine, Jul 1956, mentioned at [7]. Edison (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the Byron quote, which obviously is using a different meaning of "train", I can't view the pages cited. The first passage is presumably referring to the Tay Bridge disaster, where although the train was out of sight, there was no question as to where it was (and indeed the locomotive was later retrieved and repaired). Ellery Queen is fiction. That leaves the second passage cited, which I don't know enough about to comment on. --Anon, 23:45 UTC, November 21.

An/arctic satalite pics

I was trying to find satalite pics of north or south pole stations, particularly south pole, on google maps, I was hoping for satalite shots, just curious. can some one pls give me a link. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try some of the external links at Arctic#External_links and Antarctic#External_links as a starting point. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that most of the photos on Google maps are not from satellites but from aircraft. The best resolution from commercially available satellite photography is several meters per pixel - but some of the Google stuff is down at 10cm per pixel which means it's gotta be from aerial photography. This probably explains the lack of decent data for the poles. SteveBaker (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the high-resolution photos that they provide for big cities and other areas of great interest are indeed clearly from aircraft. For other areas the resolution seems to be within the satellite range. I have no idea how many photos of one type they serve vs. how many of the other. --Anon, 05:30 UTC, Nov. 21.

In the case of the Antarctic, it's hard to imagine an aircraft flying up and down a continent twice the size of Australia taking detailed photographs - especially given the rigorous conditions there and the unlikelyhood that anyone is going to use Google Maps for navigating there! In the case of the Arctic, nothing stays still for very long (there is no land there - you'd just be looking at floating sea-ice) - so whatever photos there are will not represent how it looks now. Hence, I doubt anyone would take the time and effort to photograph it closely. So it's down to satellite photography then - but the resolution will be poor - NASA's Landsat-7 was in a polar orbit - and took photos at 15 meter per pixel resolution. You can probably see the polar data with the NASA World Wind system - which you can download for free (links are in the article). The QuickBird commercial system is also in a polar orbit and produces monochrome images down to about two thirds of a meter and colour down to 2.5 meters - which is probably good enough for your needs. But still, the quality won't be anything like as good as you are used to finding with Google Maps for most urban areas. SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case Google Maps does not cover the poles; all coverage ends at latitude 85 north or south. --Anon, 00:00, November 22, 2007.

Google Earth shows the South pole - but it's algorithms seem to break down and the resolution jumps up and down randomly. The North pole is just blue - which is probably going to be right in a few decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another song finding question.

Does anyone know what song is playing in the background of the new scion comercial, it flashes between cars driving at night and some light effects, sometimes slowing down or speeding up randomly or nonrandomly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.102.55 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea but their site (http://www.scion.com ) has lots of music in its media-player, I would be amazed if one of them on that list didn't feature in the advert. ny156uk (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Policy in the United States

Why is Foreign policy important to the united states government? I have an essay over why the united states political system is great i have everything but foreign policy, it confuses me i cant find what exactly is foreign policy. HELP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.147.1 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try: Foreign policy and Foreign relations of the United States. And, I suppose, Hegemony. I have an essay over why the united states political system is great. Oh good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that greatness and goodness are not the same thing! —Tamfang (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember that there are those who believe, and for good reason, with impeccable sources that (a) the United States has no coherent foreign policy, and hence your problem and (b) that the United States' political system is not great (or good). Not that we want to confuse you, or anything ... Bielle (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Maker.

In the Game Maker (lite), from YoYo games, I'm working on a game, but theres thinks that, if i knew, I could use to make the game better, but know matter have much I reread everything, review the samples, and experiement, i can't find out how to make the stuff happen, please tell me how to do this stuff...

1- Make the main character shoot something, like a gun, or an arrow, anything, (example- click Space to fire gun...)

2- make another character do something when he/she sees your character, (example- you enter an alley, someones in there, because he seen you, or you entered the alley, he fired his guns...)(Example- You enter a sertant square, and another character will automaticcly do something...)

3- place up the points and want/where their at, (Example- if you look to the right of the screen, your see a box, in side the box is your lives and score...)

4- Instead of the screen being one HUGE map, and the bigger the map, the smaller everything in the map is, the screen is normal size, and when you which the side of the map, it starts scrolling over to reveal/show more land, (Example- You reach the end of the map, and it scrolls over...)

5- This might answer #4, so i'll ask it, When something happens that causes the level to change, how do you skip levels, or choose which level you go to? (Example- [level 9] You fall into the hole, it that's you back down to level 8, but the hole next to it is much farther down, and will take you to level 3...)

Please answer it in a way that it's useful, Thnak you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.222.150 (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the foggiest idea, but my guess is that since you have fairly specific questions about a fairly specific piece of software, you might get better results at their dedicated community support forums: http://gmc.yoyogames.com/. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing your game and being a deep guru in the yoyogames system, it's very hard (well, impossible really) to answer your questions. However, I'll say this much - those automated 'game maker' systems (and there have been a lot of them over the years) that claim to allow you to write a game without doing any programming are all horribly limiting. If you really want to make a game by yourself that follows your vision of how you want it to look and play, you are going to NEED to learn to program. Even with the massively sophisticated Unreal engine we use here at work (I'm a professional games programmer), we still need a dozen full time C++ programmers working on the game along with all of the artists, game designers and audio guys. SteveBaker (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that they are limiting but that's no reason to discourage people playing with them. The entire point is that they are limiting—they narrow the parameters so you don't need to do everything from scratch or require a whole team of workers. Nobody is claiming that they're going to write the next big hit with such software, but it's a great way to learn programming concepts and encourage a hobby. I disagree with your assessment about what people need to learn in order to make a game that they want; I've been using Adventure Game Studio for awhile and am coming up with a great version of exactly what I want, which happens to be a retro, Sierra-style adventure game that requires—wait for it—a text parser!! This is the sort of thing that no commercial studio would give five minutes of time today, and it isn't something that's going to make any money at all, and I'm doing it for myself and for people like me. It's fun, it's entertaining, and I bet you the final result will be more interesting to a lot of people than a lot of commercial products.

Don't let your professional expectations/norms lead you to crap on people's hobbies and amateur visions; it's silly and unnecessary. I don't think anyone is confusing these programming kits (which just abstract some of the coding for you and simplify the programming) with writing Half-Life. Some of the amateur-made games that have come out of these things have been much better than a number of professional games that have come out; focusing on character development and storytelling becomes a lot easier when you aren't trying to make everything look new and high tech and accommodate an economic demographic that favors senseless violence and button mashing. I got more enjoyment out of the Chzo Mythos than I have out of games for a long time. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - please don't get me wrong - these things have a place - and I have HUGE respect for amateur games writers because I was one myself until I decided to take it up as a career (Lemur of Lima, TuxKart, Botzilla and Tux the Penguin - A Quest for Herring to name just a few). If what you have is a toolkit for generating Monkey Island-style games - and what you want to make is a monkey island-style game - then absolutely, go for it! The problem is that people see "Game Maker" and immediately assume they'll have Quake III up and running in a couple of days. If the vision you have happens to line up with what the tool provides, then fair enough. But if you have a personal vision for what you want that differs even slightly from what the tool does (which sounds like the problem our OP is dealing with) - then sadly, you're stuck with it. If you learn to program then given time, you can write anything that the hardware is capable of. I used to have fun with a gadget called 'Shoot em up construction kit' that made games like space invaders, galaxians and such - it was a blast to mess with - although all the games came out looking more or less like galaxians or space invaders! I just hate it when people have huge expectations for these limited systems. SteveBaker (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound to me like the OP's idea is beyond the capabilities of the system; usually these systems can be pretty flexible within a few major parameters, it's just a matter of knowing how to do it. Anyway learning the limitations is a task in and of itself—I've always said that most programming is not knowing the language itself (languages can be looked up; once you know one you can usually figure out most others that are similar to it) but just learning how to go about problems and even the difference between a big problem and a small one. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like making amateur games is more for the entertainment of the programmer than of the player though.. I have as much respect for amateur game designers as I do for anyone who enjoys programming, but I don't find amateur games that good. I do recognize the obvious exception though- Counter-Strike. I find the original amateur-written mod completely unplayable because I'm so used to Source, but I've played upwards of 1000 hours of Counter-Strike: Source in the last 3 years and I attribute the greatness of the game to the original amateur deigners Gooseman and Cliffe. But except for Counter-Strike, gaming is suspiciously devoid of really fun amateur games. --⁪ffroth 07:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it's a subjective judgment. If you think Counter-Strike is a great game then you're probably in the "find stuff shoot stuff" demographic that I mentioned earlier, and that's the sort of thing that favors people who can develop in 3D and for multi-player action, none of which is very easy to do with game-making kits and there is already a well-saturated market out there. If you, for example, were more a fan of adventure games, you'd find the current market almost totally bare and the amateur offerings pretty good—graphics in such things are much simpler, focusing more on story and puzzles. There is also a fine line between amateur and independent—Introversion Software does some really amazing stuff though it's only a couple guys working on it. Amateur gaming isn't supposed to try and compete with the major market stuff so much as supplement it, at best. The kind of games I like just aren't made by companies anymore—they aren't profitable—and so amateur gaming can pick up some of that slack. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is a world of gradiation between "automated" game maker programs and the sort of hard-core, bare-metal C++ programming that gives you the Half-Life engine. There are a number of "easier" (arguably), full-featured programing languages, many of which come with toolkits (programming libraries) designed specifically for building games. I don't have much (read: "any") experience, but I'd point you to something like Adobe Flash or to Python with PyGame (or Ruby or Lua or Smalltalk, etc.), if you're interested. -- 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.120 (talk)

All of those sorts of things are still going to be world's harder than the pre-fab makers (which are not usually "automated" in any strict sense; they only simplify). I can program Flash Actionscript better than the average bear but I wouldn't dare try to make a game of any complexity in it; even with the basic graphical apparatus simplified (which is what Flash does best) you'd have to build the rest of the game framework up from scratch, and that's what these "game makers" do for you. Even handling things like simple keyboard controls is a lot easier if the work is abstracted for you. It puts limitations on what you can do, obviously, but for people starting out or people who want to see fast results from their work I recommend the "game makers". You can spend a month trying to learn Flash from scratch and come up with not a whole lot more than variations on Hello world, whereas with a "game maker" like AGS you could have a functional demo in that time. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been playing with RPG Maker XP lately- it's really amazing how powerful it is. Of course, you can only make RPGs but if you're making a classic-style 2D RPG, pretty much anything you can imagine can be accomplished with it. 2 hours produced a little 15-minute game for me and my friend, and if I ever took the time to properly learn Ruby (and the rpg maker API which doubtlessly consists of hundreds of properties and methods for manipulating various parts of the engine) it could turn into a real game --⁪ffroth 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Game Maker a lot, it's pretty easy to get to grips with and the learniong curve is not too steep. I would also say it's not particularly limiting, 2D RPGs and platformers are easy to create and '3D' isometric games can be created too. If you want to create anything truly 3D it's not so good but that's not what it's designed for. You could easily create something alone the lines of the 16 bit console games using Game Maker. As for your specific questions, you need to create objects and then create events with actions assigned to them but I would suggest you go through the tutorials first azs they will teach you what you are asking. GaryReggae (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Placer

What is placer gold and how does it differ from gold nuggets and regular gold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.142.66 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on that (of course!) Placer mining. SteveBaker (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]