Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 November 26

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 26

Feint Drift?

In this Top Gear episode comparing the Audi R8 with a 911 GT3, [1], the host, Jeremy Clarkson, is seen conducting some drifting maneuver in the 911 seen at 0:40 and especially at 1:16. (Video is work-safe).

What is the specific name of this kind of drift/slide? Is it a feint drift? As well, what is the exact procedure of executing a turn like this? Does one simply hit the brake and use the car's momentum to slide or is there a more complicated series of actions that must be executed? Please note, I have no intentions of trying this dangerous maneuver. Acceptable (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what you'd call it - but it's a pretty standard rear-wheel drive technique. These cars typically have terrible understeer - so steering around a corner at racing speeds will generally result in you sailing off in a more or less straight line into the ditch. So instead, you hit the corner at an alarming speed - as you brake and steer into the turn, the back end of the car loses grip and slithers outwards - the front end still has some grip. So you steer the front wheels in the opposite direction you normally would to go around the corner - and use the engine power to 'steer' the car. This basically allows you to continue to 'aim' the car when it's basically lost the ability to steer. The claimed benefit is that you can keep the throttle nailed to the floor all the way around the turn - so as soon as you straighten the wheel - your turbo is still 'spooled' and you rocket off down the straight without turbo-lag. That's a great technique for a skilled driver on a nice safe racetrack in a car where you don't care how fast you wear the tyres out...but it's totally impractical as a 'real world' driving technique because on a normal road you'll DEFINITELY DIE if you drive that way! This is the main reason I like front-wheel drive supercharged cars - they go where you point them and any tendency to oversteer can be dialled out with simple suspension tweaks - and superchargers don't lag so you can power out of turns easily. (this is the main reason that I drive a MINI Cooper'S). You can take corners much faster on 'real' roads with a front wheel drive car - and live to tell the tale. SteveBaker (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He could just be taking the turn "normally" (although quite hard) and the cars might be set up to oversteer a bit. It could also be trail braking, but I'm not 100% sure and it's difficult to tell if you aren't the one driving. Recury (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ISBN 978-0-9723878-0-4.

Hi, I'm trying to find a book called Lubyanka Criminal Group. I was able to get many facts about the book from your website, but finding the book is another thing. Do you have any idea of a good place to look and please don't tell me Amazon.com. Been there, done that. Thanks and Happy Holidays to you and yours! Steve Drake <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.102.196 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Try eBay, Barnes&Nobel.com and bookfinder.com Cryo921 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you click on the ISBN link above, you'll find links to just about every book purchasing resource you could want already set up to try and search for that ISBN. Just thought if you wanted to try a bunch and save a lot of time. As I'm sure you've figured out the title is originally in Russian, so searching for it in English probably won't work. Another ISBN for the same book are ISBN 0972387803; it might be worth searching separately. Of course, as you probably saw from our page of the book, the full text of the book is available online in numerous places (in Russian)... --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Abe-Books here [2] they have never failed me yet.Richard Avery (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell it's not for sale anywhere. My bet is that it is not easily available on the English-speaking market (which isn't a surprise—most Russian books aren't). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rank of Vronsky

In Leo Tolstoy's famous novel Anna Karenina, what is the rank (in the military) of Anna's lover, Vronsky? Acceptable (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick search of the text for military ranks indicates he is lower than a colonel, but other than that, no idea. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A cavalry captain, according to wikisource:Anna Karenina/Part Three/Chapter 20. Algebraist 12:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Moronic Adverts

What is the hell with these commercials ? Why do the advertisers think that we're all 4 years old ? The commercials are very idiotic. Makes intelligent people think the adverstisers are on drugs, plain idiots and retards, worse. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Which commercials? Advertising agencies are paid a lot of money to know how to target advertising campaigns; if you find a particular advertisement moronic, chances are you're not the target demographic... FiggyBee (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear how to answer this question - if indeed it is a question. So I've decided to do a brief survey for those who have not been treated to the joys of US cable TV advertising. I've been watching a program on the Japanese WWII Atomic bomb program (which in itself was a GROSS misrepresentation of the known facts) on the History channel tonight. Here is my report on just one advertising break that we were treated to:

• Homeopathic pain relief delivered via an oral spray. (Yep - they are selling you tiny bottles of water for $19.99!) - there was an on-screen warning that said something like "This stuff works about as well as you'd expect homeopathic medicines to work". Why do they say that?
• A sticky pad based on ancient Japanese medicinal techniques that 'pulls toxins out of your body' through the soles of your feet. (In which we were told that trees pull toxins in through their leaves and pump them out into the soil through their roots(!!) - so this must work...right?) Apparently it also pumps invigorating ions into your body through your feet. Interestingly they offer a lifetime supply of pads if you only pay postage...which (if you pause your TIVO and carefully read the teeny-tiny print is $12.99 for 4 pads. Well, guys - just how much does it cost to stick four pads into an envelope and post them to you? $1 probably. That makes the 'free' pads more expensive by far than the original offer! There is a cool slide popped up showing the analysis of what gets pulled out - it's a skeptical scientist's dream come true! Bogus, bogus, bogus.
• Homeopathic pain relief for pets(!!) delivered via a spray that you simply spray into their drinking water! I was choked with laughter at the idea of idiotic customers spraying water into their dog's water dishes...so sadly I didn't notice how much it costs - but I'm betting it's $19.99.
• The "Ion keyboard" - this is a cheap PC keyboard with some 'electroluminescent' lighting. It might actually be a decent product - and the big price number on the screen is (of course $19.99) - but look carefully - that's not the price of the keyboard - that's the price of a 30 day 'home trial' of the keyboard!! You're paying $20 (plus whatever it costs to post it back to them) for the privilage of borrowing a keyboard for a month!! They never say how much it costs to actually buy it. But once you have it - and you have to go to all the hassle to post it back to them (which you just know won't be easy) - they're just going to charge your credit card...who knows how much?
• A "FREE" debt consultation/repair service that reduces your debt payments, etc, etc, etc. It's well known that these work by selling vulnerable people yet more credit...they are all pretty much scams - and because they are playing on the desperation of the parts of society that can least afford to be scammed, that's pretty reprehensible.
• A CD of Christmas music for $23.98 (WHAT!? Not $19.99 - what were they thinking?!)..."NOT AVAILABLE IN STORES"...why isn't it available in stores? Well, because it's a non-name group singing out-of-copyright music - probably recorded in someones garage. It's crap and stores have evidently refused to stock it...DUH! Pressing a CD costs $0.25, putting it into a nice box with an inserts and packing that into a mailer pushes the cost to $0.75 in quantities of 1,000 or more. Add $0.50 for postage. They are making EASILY a 1000% profit on these things. Direct sales should be VASTLY cheaper than going through stores to do it. If you saw that CD in WalMart you'd expect to be paying $9.99 for it - not $23.98 - and that includes WalMart's profit margins.

Not ONE - not a single ONE of the adverts in that break was even slightly credible. Every last one of them was a scam of one sort or another. Horrifying - absolutely horrifying. US schools need to teach critical thinking skills - that these advertizers can afford these ad spots says that an ENORMOUS number of people are being taken in by these junk products.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only speak for terrestrial TV, but we seem to have it better in Britain than in most countries (although at times it doesn't feel like it!) — on the whole, our ads are of higher quality and are focused to a lesser extent on credibility-free hard-sell and bogus claims than, for example, in the USA. We have relatively tight regulation of advertisements of all types (print, radio and TV) through OFCOM, and ads are readily rejected or pulled if they are found to be offensive, misrepresentational (sp?!) or just inappropriate. It's interesting to note that some of the more memorable ads are deliberate, tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top versions of the stupid, hard-sell ads that 65.163.112.205 and SteveBaker (and I) despise so much. Classic example: Safestyle UK. One of innumerable British double glazing companies — how can they distinguish themselves from the competition? By running a never-ending series of deliberately cheaply-produced, hilariously low-quality, not-entirely-serious ads featuring an array of bizarre characters (various eccentric Z-list celebrities, a red-dress-wearing woman with strange lips and glasses, and the crowning glory: "Window Man", a manic, scary-looking middle-aged man with straggly long hair, a bald pate and a scratchy beard, who for some reason wears a wizard's cape! What on earth...?), daft, shouted slogans and tacky graphics, they have become very well known to the TV-watching public. These ads are not bad in the US cable TV sense — they are intentionally "so-bad-they're-good".

I haven't even talked about the ads that are intentionally good and memorable. Put it this way: I watch a maximum of 5 hours of commercial TV (non-BBC) per week, and yet I can remember dozens of classic ads from the last 15-20 years. Guinness, Nationwide Building Society's early-1990s stop-motion, the recent Cadbury's gorilla ad, Honda's epics, Maureen Lipman's British Telecom ads, the Skoda "cake" ad ... I could go on (I won't!). www.tellyads.com has lots of recent British ads and some old classics, which you may be interested in to get a comparison with the USA. Brits moan about ads like everybody else does, but on the whole I think we are lucky! (Final comment: look on YouTube for "Woolworths Christmas ad" to see a genuine epic from 1981. It lasted for a whole commercial break, cost several £million and featured A-list stars and the most memorable jingle ever. Poor quality clip, but worth it.) Hassocks5489 (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The rules behind advertising in the UK are very strict; there's an entire agency, the ASA, devoted solely to regulating advertising. Just about every one of SteveBaker's ads fails at least one part of the The TV Advertising Code and would have been pulled (except for the Christmas songs one, but then who buys that stuff anyway?). In particular, homeopathy ads are almost totally forbidden - they cannot say what the product does or make any medical claims unless the product has been proven to work by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre medical board. And of course, if you do try to scam people on British TV, expect the sky to fall on you. Laïka 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Homeopathy product ads in the US is that what they are selling isn't harmful - and they don't have to prove efficacy. So they can get away with selling a few teaspoonsful of water for $20. Worse still, homeopathic remedies are placed on store shelves right next to the real thing with fairly poor product labelling. I was trying to get some anti-histamine allergy medicine in WalMart and came VERY close to buying some homeopathic junk by mistake. It was only that I happened to compare ingredient lists to see if the generic store brand had the same ingredients that I discovered it. Superficially, the boxes looked just like actual medicines. It's shocking - but it seems that it'll take legislation to stop it and enough voters are convinced that the stuff works that no politicians have the nerve to fix it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worse than just that. Almost all "natural" remedies (technically "supplements") are almost totally unregulated by the FDA and can say whatever they want as long as they have some small "this statement not endorsed by the FDA" label. It's not a lack of legislation that led to the situation, it's legislation itself that established it (blame the Mormons on this one—they are the big-time political allies that these companies work with, because they are prohibited from taking actual drugs). See DSHEA. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mormons are only prohibited from harmful or illegal drugs (plus alchol, tea, and coffee). Medicinal drugs are completely permissible. See Word of Wisdom. --Masamage ♫ 04:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"What's that name again?" "HELLIBEDS!!!!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.230.244 (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deliberately cheaply produced adverts seem to be the in thing in the UK at the moment, with that Safe Style one being the worst, along with the recent one with a bloke shouting "You Buy One, You Get One FREE!", not to mention the infamous Barry Scott who revels in SHOUTING about how good Cillit Bang is. A lot of these ads are patronising and irritating. The Elephant car insurance and Michael Winner's ESure adverts are also annoying. "Calm down dear, it's only a commercial!". The British equivalent of the scam ads mentioned by the O.P. are the endless adverts for loan sharks, car finance and debt revovery that dominate the non-terrestrial chennels during the day. "Do you have loans, CCJ's or Decrees?". Personal injury claims (aka ambulance chasers) used to be a particular scourge but these seem to have died down a bit lately.

At the end of the day, it seems that the more moronic an advert is, the more people will remember it. These people know what they're doing. Mind you, if you think TV ads are bad commercial radio is even worse! Aaargh!!! GaryReggae (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to lixten to commercial radio without being reminded of Radio Active, Britain's only national local radio station. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Apple Inc. needs to fire their whole advertising department. Every time one of their commercials comes on, I scramble for the remote. shoy (^words _words) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You might be interest in reading Edward Bernays's Propaganda. He's usually credited as being the inventor of modern public relations (in the 20's) and his ideas that have had a tremendous influence on advertising could be summed up like this: "the general mass of people is too stupid to understand their own good and vote fo the right policies so we should make them do (aka trick them into doing) the right thing". The right thing here being just about anything the government or the industry think is to their advantage. Ed' was a bit shocked to discover the full collection of his writings was sitting nicely on Goebbels bookshelf. There is an online original version here and a translation in french here. Keria (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your cell phone bill

Who have you been texting fifty times a day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.73.245 (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

IDK, my BFF Jill? --ffroth 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just more moronic adverts. See, Re.: "MORONIC Adverts" QUESTION above. All of those commercials ARE idiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.112.205 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seen one about the lizard, and it was stupid, another about "Head On", others commercials are soooo bad that they suck ass, so bad that the makers of Head On will have to make one to advertise "Ass On" so the commercials don't suck ass so much. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"HEAD ON! YOU STICK IT ON YOUR HEAD! HEAD ON!" and this repeats on and on in that moronic advert. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we get the idea. If you want to rant rather than ask or answer questions, the refdesk isn't really the place. FiggyBee (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I WAS PROVING A POINT WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION, NOT RANTING AT ALL! Now I have to put my Caps Lock Button on a commercial to sell it. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't watch television at all and haven't for.. well, a couple of years probably. No big decision, I just noticed that there was nothing on I wanted to watch and and walked away. Last year my daughter was watching a xmas special at a friends house and didn't understand what a commerical break was. Anway, the reason I bring it up is that the only time I see broadcast TV at all is when I'm at the gym on the treadmill. The combination of distance from the subject matter (not having been watching for so long) and having the sound off makes me keenly aware of the bizarre idiosyncracies of TV shows and ads that I suppose I'd taken for granted. Like the amount of half naked women in music videos. Sure I'd noticed them before, but never really considered how completely superfluous the music is to the whole experience. Would it not be cheaper to just hire strippers, tape them, then broadcast it? Why bother with the self-important lip-synchers at all? Every time they interject shots of him with his "serious artist" face in between shots of women's butt cleavage I just about laugh myself off the equipment. "Yeah, yeah, I get it, yer a badass homeboy. Can we get back to the jiggling stuff, please?" Matt Deres (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What country has the world's largest fishing fleet?

What country has the world's largest fishing fleet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.230.244 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick browse hasn't found what you want, but according to fishery, the People's Republic of China accounts for a third of all fishing, so they seem likely. Algebraist 12:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Largest in terms of volume of fish? Tonnage of boats? Number of boats? People employed in the industry? Neil ☎ 12:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

China produces the most fish, both from fish-farming and from sea fishing, according to the United Nations Common Database, followed by Peru, USA, Indonesia, Chile and Japan. Lloyds of London keeps a partial registery, but these only list large trawler-sized boats registered with the national merchant navy - most of China's are small 2 or 3 person craft, so the top of the list are the USA, Russia and Japan.[3] Laïka 16:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Neil, (s)he said fleet, which means number of vessels--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're aware that this is the sample question at this page, right? :-) Jørgen (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Phone bill

I got a mobile phone contract with an unspecified company, for £30 a month I should get 300 free texts and 500 free minutes. However I have no friends and so rarely use more than 20 of each. Yet my bill has never been less than £35 and is usually £60 or more, why is this? and is it legal? (this is not a legal question) futher more, is this not a breech of contract as I always pay my bill regardless of amount, or how difficult it is for me to do. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an itemised bill? £35 sounds believable - perhaps there is VAT on phone bills or something? Here in the USA, there are typically half-a-dozen random-looking taxes and charges added to the base cost of the contract and the bill lists everyone you called. £60 seems ridiculous though. Call the company and demand an explanation. One (remote) possibility is that someone has duplicated the phone's internal code number and is stealing time from your account. SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though you have been put onto a different tariff. You might be better off with a "pay as you go" tariff. You should find details of all the different tariffs on the company's website. Also bear in mind it can be difficult to challenge a bill once you've paid it, as that implies you've accepted it as correct, I think.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Are the minutes any time any network? Have you sent any non-standard texts? (ie to those short numbers rather than normal mobile phones, such as 81199) Have you signed up to one of those stupid services such as Jamster where you get sent lots of music downloads? Bear in mind downloading them will also incur a charge on top of the £4.50 a week or whatever it is. Have you called numbers that are not standard mopbile or landline numbers (ie those that start 0845, 0800, 0906, etc) as those will not be covered by your minutes? Have you used WAP or GPRS? Have you sent any MMS texts (picture messages)? As you rarely use your allowance of minutes and texts, you would definitely be better off on a different tariff (I'm going to presume that you took a contract so you could get a good phone for free) - you will not be able to cancel your current contract, however, until it ends - if it's a 12 month contract, you can renegotiate it after 9 months of the contract - if you were suckered into an 18 month contract (never take these!) then you can sign up to a new contract after 15 months. They wouldn't let you renegotiate a Pay-as-you-go, though, which is what I recommend you take based on your usage. A O2 Genie sim card would do you (£10 a month minimum top up with a load of free texts a month); you can get the sim cards for free from the O2 website at the moment.

If you are with Orange or O2 you will find they are usually pretty good about letting you change your tariff any time after the first month, so it might be worth calling them and finding out - you can change to the cheapest one possible and wait out the contract. T-Mobile and Vodafone are less helpful (I know you're not on 3, as they are cheaper then that because their service is crap). I would also call them to find out why the bill is so high (VAT should have been included in the £30 a month if that was the advertised contract price, or you have been mis-sold the deal and can potentially claim the money back via small claims court). Neil ☎ 14:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not download music. I do not phone 81196 numbers. I have not signed up to any other services. I think I will have to take T mobile to small claims. But for this, do I need a lawyer? and hopw much does one of those cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a lawyer for small claims, it's all very easy to do. You can even make the claim online (Google "money claim online"). The cost depends on the amount being claimed, it would be about £30 (you can claim the costs back should you win). --WebHamster 16:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

it may well be worth contacting your local Citizens Advice Bureau as they can give advice on the small-claims courts, contracts, and finding a lawyer. The CAB service is free and confidential. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is TOTALLY ridiculous advice. Why are you even thinking of taking them to court?! You don't even know what the charge is for! Step 1: Look at your bill. How is it broken down? Step 2: If there isn't enough information on your bill to find out why the charge is higher than you expected, phone them and ask for a more detailed explanation of why the bill is so high. Step 3: Figure out who's fault it is. Step 4: If it is their fault, call them again and explain how they screwed up and ask what they are going to do about it. Step 5: Wait for them to reply. Step 6: IF (and only if) it is both their fault - and they refuse to fix it - consider taking them to court. But we aren't even on step 1 yet - you don't even know what the extra charge is for! What does the bill say? There are a LOT of possibilities - Maybe they did screw up. Maybe you didn't read the small print on the contract. Maybe you bought more services than you thought. Maybe you didn't understand the consequences of some kind of usage pattern. Maybe the moment you point out the problem they refund all your money and offer you 3000 free hours to cover your inconvenience. Who knows?! But rushing off to court is just ridiculous until you get to step 6! Jeez - what a litigious society we live in! SteveBaker (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, litigation, The US's no.1 export. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - as I said, call them to find out why the bill is so high. Neil ☎ 09:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I lived in the UK - but I'm pretty sure that phone bills there don't just say: "You owe us £60.12p" - they say things like "Service fee: £30.00p, Additional Minutes at 3.5p/minute: £21.95p, VAT: £8.45p Total: £60.12p" (or whatever). Here in Texas with our Cingular plan, they itemise your bill and list every call you made. My son's phone bill was about 10 pages long because it listed every stupid little text message he sent over the past month! So what does your bill actually say? That is your first question. SteveBaker (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Try calling the company and asking. My mother was FURIOUS with me as a teen for a high phone bill until I pointed out with call logs that I only called people after 7pm, when it was unlimited night and weekend minutes, and my voicemail, and her, which was in-network calling. Three months later (they ran a complete investigation) we got a huge credit back - turns out they'd been billing us extra to chagne it from 9pm to 7pm but hadn't actually implemented it, so we were using minutes between 7 and 9 due to their error. But we also found out voicemail is not an in-network number (!!!), so I checked my voicemail less often. Still, try calling. Sometimes they mess up. Kuronue | Talk 04:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Breast size growth

How much would a female's chest be able to grow realistically over the course of a summer holiday(say 3 months?)I'd be inclined to go with one cup size,maybe 2 if she was right on the turn at the start of the summer Lemon martini (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how many cakes she eats. Neil ☎ 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From my limited experience as a man, please feel free to correct me, ladies. But breast size varies, due to hormonal cycles, and therefore your question cannot be answered fully and/or accuratly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I really want to hear the story behind your question. ›mysid (☎∆) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are asking about thelarche, rather the cyclical changes in sexually mature women, from your comment "right on the turn at the start of the summer". If so, its very difficult to say as the rate and extent of development of sexual characteristics varies between individuals, however Puberty#Breast development might be helpful in a general sense. Rockpocket 19:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel I should invoke my new policy WIKI:HOLE-if what you typed wasn't quite what you meant to say,then explaining will only make things worse.However,in an attempt to redeem myself...it is for a Harry Potter fanfic story I am working on where a character goes off for the hols in June and returns in September notably more well-endowed.

1.By being 'right on the turn' I meant if she was say a B cup but virtually ready for a C at the start of the summer then she could grow through C in the summer and be just into a D by September as it's a growth of only just over a cup size.

2.If she was only partly into a B cup then to get into a D would be more like 2 cup sizes so I would assume it would be less feasible.

3.And I'm assuming that to go from say A to D in a summer is physically impossible-is this the case?

I hope that explains things better.Now pass the spade please. Lemon martini (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not being an expert in teenage girls breasts, lets estimate what what that change would actually mean: According to brassiere measurements, cup size = bust girth − underbust girth . Thus to go from just under a C to a D in a summer would require over 1 inch growth, which is a fair amount for over a summer. To go from an A to a D would require between 2 and 3 inches, which seems like a hell of a lot to me. Rockpocket 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sex Desk

How would one go about setting up another ref desk in relation to sexually orrientated questions, as we often seem to get questions about sex, masturbation, porn ect ect ect. I for one find this slightly offensive. If I feel this way I am sure other do to, so could be not file these away in some other section where I dont have to see them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea for several reasons. For one thing, Wikipedia is not censored, and the reference desk is no exception. For another thing, having a separate "dirty questions" desk would encourage people to ask humorous questions, and the sincere questions would be drowned out in a sea of bathroom humor. But most importantly, the reference desks are divided according to the kind of people who best answer the questions. A question about the biology of sex belongs at the science desk, one about erotic literature belongs at the humanities desk, and one about sexual slang words belongs at the language desk. To remove these questions from their appropriate categories and lump them together wouldn't make logical sense, and it would make it harder for experts to find questions they know how to answer. —Keenan Pepper 17:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Keenan. Fragmenting the Desks further means more questions will go unanswered, questions will take longer to answer, and fewer experts will see or respond to each question. As well, creating a Sex Desk is pretty much equivalent to hanging out a "Troll us here!" sign. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I see no problem with having the humanities desk handle questions related to erotica on a more abstract level and the science desk handle health-related questions dealing with actual intercourse. JIP | Talk 18:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorization based on what offends a minority of readers is a bad approach. Categorization based on natural divisions of subject matter, on areas that are over-populated, etc., are much better ideas. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That would just be asking people to not shove beans up their nose. bibliomaniac15 00:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As it's the sex desk,surely the nose would not be the first orifice to be considered...? Lemon martini (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the policy is intended to cover all orifices - except, conceivably, the oral cavity. SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

earthworms

matt63.3.18.130 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC) name/title of person who studies earthworms ?

Oligochaeteologist. Googling on "who studies earthworms" took me here. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just Get Along

My friends and I were just wondering about the origin of the quote, "Can't we all just get along?"

If anyone could settle it for us, I'd appreciate it. =)

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.232.144 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rodney King said it during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. Recury (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the actual quote was "umphh", "urggh", "aaagh". --WebHamster 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The riots were reacting to the court decision acquitting the cops who beat him, so he didn't say it while he was getting beaten or anything. Recury (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know... but that would have ruined the joke :P --WebHamster 21:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Weight training equipment in maximum security prisons

Why?

66.91.225.183 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well why not? They are placed in prison to be reformed and to pay their debt to society, not to be prevented from doing anything. Weight equipment can be an excellent way of getting individuals to A) keep fit B) Care about their body, thus perhaps making them less likely to drugs C) develop a hobby/interest that might deflect their attention away from more negative things plus many other benefits if you are a bit creative about what good may come from it. Of course the side-affect is that the violent inmates have the ability to tone their bodies, and I guess you could use the equipment as weapons. ny156uk (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheap way to give the prisoners something to do? Help them focus on improving themselves? Dismas|^(talk) 23:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to chain gangs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.99.126 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

have a look at the article on chain gangs, seems they disappeared in the US around the 50s and then returned (at least to Alabama) in the 90s....ny156uk (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chain gang IS back, especially in Alabama AND Arizona, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio has set one up for females and juveniles. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Arpaio has also removed weight training equipment from his prisons. Recury (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes - Joe Arpaio - he's "something else". He decided to solve the prison overcrowding problem by having all of his prisoners live in tents...in Arizona...in the summer! You really need to read our Joe Arpaio article - I can't do him full justice in just one paragraph. He feeds the prisoners only twice a day...on very monotonous time-expired food. He banned coffee, all tobacco use and even withdrew salt and pepper from the cafeteria. The inmates only get Animal Planet and Disney Channel on TV and they have to listen to mostly opera, and...<shudder>...Frank Sinatra piped in over the PA system (OK, OK! That's it - I'm giving up stealing office supplies - no Frank Sinatra - I'm sorry, OK?) SteveBaker (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would be very interested if anyone could locate any research papers on this. --M@rēino 16:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Gold as a Conductor

Maybe I am mistaken but is gold a good conductor? Would it work better or strengthen a radio signal if the antennea was replaced with gold or gold plated, would the signal be stronger and go further? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.99.126 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

gold has Electrical resistivity at 20 °C of 22.14 n Ω·m. By comparison, copper is 16.78 nΩ·m and aluminium 26.50 nΩ·m. If your antenna was made of copper, or copper plated, and if electrical resistivity correlates with signal strength for a fixed input, then no. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gold isn't quite as good a conductor as copper and therefore would not be as good as an antenna. We got lucky there. It's pretty good, though, and solid gold would work fine as an antenna with the added benefit of being corrosion-proof. A lot of antennas are aluminum for corrosion-resistance and light weight. Copper is better tahn either, and silver is best of all, but it's not so much better than copper that we need to use it instead. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If gold is an inferior (to copper) conductor, then why do high-end audio and video cables often use gold-plated connectors? --ShelfSkewed Talk 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mainly due to it's non-corrosivity as stated above, see also Gold plating#Electronics. 84.65.85.58 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

'cos folks will buy anything. Gold looks nice. More seriously, it does not corrode, and often coats steel plugs; steel does corrode, and oxides are not good conductors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The ability to resist corrosion is one thing - but gold is also very soft so it can mold itself at the microscopic level to the surface it's mating with - which provides a bigger contact area and hence a lower resistance connection. But I agree that looking at the copper connectors I have, none of them seem too seriously corroded.

Audiophiles have a problem - they've always strived for audio perfection - but now they have it. Even fairly cheap audio equipment is able to produce better quality audio than the human ear can perceive. A $100 600Gbyte hard disk can hold all the music you will ever care about - enough for you to listen continuously for years and never hear the same track twice. A teeny-tiny iPod can hold more music than most people own. So - if you are an audio geek who used to argue with other audio geeks over whether one record player tone arm or another was better - or if you are a manufacturer of 'high end' equipment with a reputation for quality - or if you are a magazine who makes money by telling people what the latest, greatest technology is...then you're in deep trouble because a $100 system is "sufficiently good" and there really isn't a reason to buy $5000 system. 99% of people don't care about the difference and 99.9% can't tell the difference! So they are down to arguing about the impedance of cables, how nice the controls feel - that kind of thing. Read a modern audio magazine - it's just sad! SteveBaker (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The ones who can tell the difference don't buy overly expensive cables. The ones who can tell the difference wouldn't be caught dead listening to an MP3, at least not when doing 'serious' listening. Impedance, inductance and capacitance all make far more of a difference than gold conductors. Incidentally the accepted theory in the hifi world is that if the socket is nickel then you use a nickel plug, if the socket is gold you use a gold plug. Metallurgy is not my forte but apparently there's some sort of chemical effect when you mix and match. --WebHamster 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are referring to galvanic corrosion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A tad unfair. The differences between basic stereo sound output and mid/high-end stereo output is undeniably different. The detail is less, the bass, the ability to handle increased volume, the ability to retain clear treble at higher volumes - all could be better on lower quality speaker/systems. Whether the price difference is worthwhile is questionable, but it is simply incorrect to suggest the difference couldn't be heard by even the most tone-deaf of people if placed side by side. This doesn't mean that 99% of the public aren't happy with the sound quality they are getting, but that's very different to not being able to hear an appreciable difference between $100 equipment and $5000. The difference is knowledge/experience. An untrained/average listener of music might not notice an individual hitting the wrong 'key' in a performance, but a trained/knowledgeable person could spot it a mile off. I doubtlessly wouldn't know if a band mistimed their music (unless it was grossly mistimed) but again a musician might. Now to those who have deep interest in audio the difference between systems is noticeable. That doesn't alter what the general public think, but then the general public are not experts in a field but they could be trained to hear the difference. Does that make most high-end futile? No, to me the high-end satisfies the avid user/lavish and the 'low' (or mass consumer end) satisfies the masses.

Also check out Malcolm gladwell's interpretation of the pepsi-challenge for more on expert vs non-expert ability to differentiate things...http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_09_06_a_ketchup.html (this is on tedtalks as an excellent video too) ny156uk (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)