Miscellaneous desk
< November 7	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 8

to become a movie critic....

what would i have to do to become a movie critic??? What should be my first step??--Dlo2012 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appaly for a colum at a local newspaper. Then get one at a regional one then state one. BUNNYS 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first step should be learning to write proper English (assuming that you intend to write reviews in English). Editors aren't going to look favorably on your work when they see things like "i" and "???" --Anon, 03:30 UTC, November 7, 2007.

Yes, it rather depends what you mean by a first step. Literacy is certainly very important, as well as articulation, insight, and wit, and a sound understanding of the film industry and familiarity with lots of movies of various genres. But if you haven't already done so, watch lots of movies and read as many reviews as you can as a first step.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which form of film criticism are you interested in, journalistic film criticism or academic film criticism? They’re rather separate fields. Either way, getting a good education would be a rather essential first step. For academic film criticism, getting an education that emphasizes film theory, like a degree in Cinema Studies from NYU would be a good avenue to go down.

The educational background of existing journalistic film critics seems to be all over the place. Sometimes the education seems very reasonable for a journalistic film critic. For example, Leonard Maltin has a degree in journalism, and Roger Ebert did graduate work in English. But some reviewers have an unexpected education. For example, Michael Medved studied law, and Janet Maslin has a degree in math. I think Harry Knowles probably doesn’t have a college education at all, but most journalistic film critics can’t get a start that way. MrRedact 10:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I wouldn't say that a college degree is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of a career in journalism. As Nicholas Tomalin once said, "the only qualities essential for real success in journalism are ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability." The only way into the field is through experience. You can't expect to get a post as a movie critic as your first job in journalism. You have to get your foot in the door. Bunnys's advice about working for a local newspaper is spot on, but it might just be as a general writer. Don't expect to get paid for a while. Offer to do unpaid work at the smallest publication in your area. Build up a portfolio of writing, and then try and specialise in writing about film at a later date. Good luck. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this day & age, get a blogger account and start posting your own film reviews. It's not like you need anyone's permission, and by so doing you gain experience and build a track record which would be useful evidence should you later seek paid work in this field. Other activities would be to join a film society (assuming such a thing exists wherever you are) and get involved in their programming. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I once knew a guy that did the film reviews for a monthly or weekly magazine from time to time. He was a talented story-teller (read: writer), had been reading books most of his childhood, had an intense vocabularly, but by story-teller I mean he was a pathalogical liar - a drug addict, so used to lying and conning his way through life, completely in denial about his addictions and convincing all those close to him that he was 'clean' and only dabbled in weed. My point is he used to submit his reviews so narfed that his grammar, spelling, and punctuation were attrocious, and it was always left to the editor to make heads or tails and format it properly. Even when he was a writer for TV his stuff was never literally correct. My point is, in some cases spelling, grammar and punctuation aren't as important as the content. The various presses normally use proofreaders anyway. Rfwoolf 18:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Tomalin wasn’t speaking from personal experience about trying to get started in journalism without a degree – he has a degree in English Literature from Cambridge. If you thumb through the biographies on our list of notable journalistic film critics, you’ll see that as a whole they’re a quite well-educated bunch. I’m not saying it’s impossible to get started in a career as a journalistic film critic without a college degree, but it’d certainly be a lot harder. Journalistic film criticism is a competitive field, and it’s a lot harder getting a publisher to take you seriously if you don’t have a college degree on your resume. There’s a lot that can be learned about film by taking some classes in the subject. And it’s a lot easier to learn how to write well if you have a prof giving you feedback on papers you’ve written. An editor might clean up your spelling and punctuation for you, but he’s not going to be too keen on the idea of tutoring an unknown film critic on the elements of composition. MrRedact 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horace King

In the featured article on the above mentioned man, it states that in the latter part of his life he was ellected to a position of authority, but did not pass many bills, only one of which ever became law, the prohibition of alcahol in ...alabama. What I wish to know is how is this possible since African Americans did not get the vote until the 1960's?!?!?!?!?! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's Horace King (architect), btw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King was in the Alabama Legislature from 1868 through 1872, during Reconstruction when many white Southerners (that is, those who supported the Confederacy) were prohibited from voting, while newly-freed blacks were encouraged to vote. For a short period after the Civil War, many African Americans were elected to state legislatures and some even to Congress (see Reconstruction#African_American_officeholders). For example, while King was registrar of Russell County, he and the other two registrars registered over 3000 African Americans to vote, but fewer than 100 whites. In the early 1870s, many whites regained the right to vote, and either passed laws restricting blacks' right to vote, or used intimidation (such as the Ku Klux Klan) to virtually eliminate the black vote until the 1960s. -- Lissoy 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colored people

Some people react as if insulted when the term "colored" is used in association with race. They react by saying something like "I’m not a Telly Tubby." The NAACP (the National Association for Advancement of Colored People) says that the phrase "people of color" or "colored people," while not used very often today, was used frequently at the turn of the century to mean non-Caucasians. Today the term "Black" is used to mean non-Caucasian, although the NAACP has no plans to change its name.

The ancient Egyptians associated skin color with nationality. In Ancient Egypt there were four distinct nationalities associated with skin color, manner of dress and customs. In biology cuticle color is often associated with a domain when used as taxa. For instance, a Horned Orb-Spinner’s domain may be associated with the different colors of its horns and other parts of its body, just as Ancient Egyptians associated human skin color (along with manner of dress and behavior) with peoples from various nations including, Syrians, Nubians (Blacks), Libyans, and Egyptians (Brown).

It seems possible therefore, using modern computer and video technology, that the issue of referring to people as "colored" can be resolved by acknowledging that everyone, including Caucasians, are "colored" to a certain extent. For instance if you are 100% white then your skin will reflect 100% red, 100% green and 100% blue. If you are 100% black then your skin will absorb 100% red, 100% green and 100% blue. Since actual reflection and/or absorption of color by skin does in fact occur somewhere in between it seems the term "colored" can be applied to everyone by indicating the percent of reflected and/or absorbed color to identify someone.

For instance, on average my skin reflects 37-38% red, 31-32% green and 31-32% blue of incandescent indoor ceiling light. Bottom line is that everyone is colored, just in some cases, to a different extent.

Dichotomous 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a question in that, Dichotomous? With all due respect, we can see with our eyes that everyone is coloured. Xn4 13:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be obvious that the "question," if for your benefit it must be stated is, what's wrong with using the term "colored?" Dichotomous 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You answered it yourself, really. "Some people react as if insulted when the term "colored" is used in association with race." See Euphemism#The "Euphemism Treadmill". 69.95.50.15 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)As with all other arbitrary nomenclature, its rightness or wrongness is subjective. As you noted at the top, "colored" has been generally supplanted by "black", and you're likely to encounter people who object to its use. And I'll echo Xn4 that the question was not obvious at all. — Lomn 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think Xn4's remark was fair & your response, Dichotomous, uncalled for. I think the problem with colored (apart from the appalling spelling) is that it is applied only to a subset of people, and that subset objects. Were it applied to all people I'd agree that there would be less room for complaint, but equally the word would be less useful as a discriminator of the subset. And all of that, to use your words, should be obvious. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL... Englishmen (or women) no doubt. My question was not intended to solicit a response from you, but I find it interesting that you did in fact respond so bitterly, in absence of any understanding whatsoever of what slavery might be like on the receiving end. Dichotomous 14:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's such a stupid response. Any "bitterness" was to do with your response to Xn4's comment and had nothing to do with an understanding of slavery. I'm sorry you did not have the good grace and common courtesy to acknowledge your error. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans are no longer required to follow English spelling, here or anywhere else in the world. Dichotomous 14:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that comment about spelling was meant to be taken entirely seriously... Bistromathic 14:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a justification for disliking use of the word "coloured". As an analogy, I can imagine disabled people being offended by being referred to as "differently abled" or "specially abled" or something. I think that the problem with these words is that they are far too general, and conspicuously so, almost as if the person using the terms thinks that the disability is a bad thing, and intentionally uses vague euphemisms to avoid drawing attention to it. I would imagine the same applies to describing the colour of someone's skin: saying coloured makes it sound a bit like you are shying away from "black" as though it is an unpleasant concept. However, "black" and "white" also seem silly words to use, as nobody has skin that is even close to being perfectly white or black. We should probably start describing people as "7% cyan, 42% yellow, 18% magenta", etc. (I have no idea what colour that describes). That would have the additional advantage of making racism sound completely ridiculous. Bistromathic 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would make normal conversation pretty ridiculous too. "Police are looking for a male #FFE2CB suspect...". 69.95.50.15 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The termed was used almost exclusively during the period of racial segregation in the United States. NAACP's name is historical and considered acceptable for those reasons, as the page on the group states in the introduction. Usage today connotates the attitude of segregation. Thus it is seen as offensive. The term has always been highly political when applied to people; claiming that it might be used neutrally is either accidental or intentional ignorance about how language works. You might also take a look at the page Colored which describes some of the history of the term. It is considered an out-of-date term and thus reflects an out-of-date sensibility about race relations. If you are going to express a (misguided) desire for pure language literalism, why not start with something a bit less politically and historically charged and try to convince people that instead of the term "white" they should use specific chromatic pigments? It'll be equally fruitless but it'll also make you appear less ignorant of the history of race relations. --24.147.86.187 15:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - let's try not to dodge the actual issue here. Of all the attributes a person has - why pick the colour of their skin as the first thing you might want to say about them? Well, it's obvious - it's one of the top two most noticeable characteristics of someone whom you only just saw for the first time - on a par with their sex maybe. (Note carefully: I said "noticeable" - I didn't say "important".) So we need words to describe people's skin colour without offending them. Please don't get me wrong though - it's certainly not the most important characteristic - once you've actually met someone properly it rates down there on the importance scale slightly above eye colour and below their like/dislike for shellfish as far as I'm concerned. But it's noticable and descriptive - so you absolutely do have to have a decent vocabulary of non-offensive terms to describe a handful of clearly distinguishable skin tones - just as we do for eye colour, hair colour and so on. The problem is that as soon as you pick a word, some racist idiot is going to pick it as a term of abuse - and then the rest of us have to scurry around and find another word to use instead. Each time around, the word we choose gets less and less meaningful. "People of colour" is indeed a bloody stupid term...and I'll be happy to see the back of it...but I fear that whatever comes next will be worse. As '69 points out, cripples became disabled people who became "differently able"...an utterly ridiculous term with no validity whatever from a linguistic perspective. But short of having vocabulary police who check on these things, I don't see any way for any term we choose not to be turned into a perjorative by someone. It sucks - but it's not avoidable. "Black" and "White" aren't very descriptive - 'white' people are pinkish-yellow and 'black' people are brown...it's a terribly inaccurate pair of words - we could switch to saying "Pink" and "Brown" instead...but what's the point? It'll only be a matter of weeks before those get turned into words you can't use anymore. So just tell me what the politically correct terms are for different percentages of dermatologic melanin concentrations and I'll use whatever works this week - but I do need a word for purely practical reasons. SteveBaker 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "a minimum melanin person", "a medium melanin female", "a maximum melanin man"? :) ---- WebHamster 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker said: but I do need a word for purely practical reasons. ... This line of reasoning has an appealing air of pragmatism and rationality to it, but it seems to miss one crucial point: pragmatism and rationality are not always appealing to human beings. If pragmatism were the only consideration, there might be no compunction for people to speak of others in the most detached and insensitive ways:

"Hello madam, is there a term I may use to efficiently describe the far-above-average size of your breasts?"
"Hello sir, do you have a preference regarding the manner in which I describe your bodily odors?"
"Dear Susan, before I agree to marry you, I request that you provide me with a term I can use when introducing you to friends and family; a term that conveys your history of childhood abuse and latent mistrust toward others, both of which you have admitted to me openly."

Just because something is "noticeable" or even "distinguishing" it does not necessarily constitute something someone wants to be "defined" as, or even referred to as, even once. This is so even if that "defining characteristic" is inherently benign when viewed with the disinterested eye of emotionally-detached logic and complete impartiality, if any such "eye" indeed exists in the world at all. dr.ef.tymac 01:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Black" has been acceptable for decades and shows no immediate signs of not being acceptable; it is sufficiently broad in describing the social and racial categories without necessarily presuming nationality or regional origins. For all of the hub-bub that our friendly white male internet users occasionally have about having to change their terms every few "matter of weeks", these things are considerably more stable than one might make out. I think there is a lot which could be read into the apparent dislike of linguistic inspecificity on this issue but we are perfectly happy it on dozens of others. "Colored" has been out of vogue (in the US, anyway) since the 1960s; if you haven't been able to adapt by this point, I suspect the problem is on your end. --24.147.86.187 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of vogue perhaps, but not out of use by even Black folk who might have been raised in the 1960's and are still alive (God forbid. Who needs all these ~~old~~ elderly people with their archaic terms around clogging up the works anyway?). The problem is that as mentioned above "Black" is becoming a derrogatory term, not due to the occasional racist, but due to the bahavior of the population who have chosen it for their own. If we can't move backward to "colored" then yes, why not move forward to a hex triplet that decodes to a color patch or a patch that encodes to #FFE2CB or more likely (being chased by the cops) to #000000)? ....after all it is the British who have taught us to use numbers in place of peoples names as in "Is that you double ought seven?" What kind of deal is that for a name? Dichotomous 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Black" shows no signs to me of becoming derogatory. It is used as a statement of pride by the Black community. It is far more commonly used than the census term "African-American" by members of the Black community from what I can tell. "Colored" on the other hand is not used in anything but a historical context from what I can tell. In any case, colors as names for races or ethnic groups have never been strictly about the color of the skin; Japanese have "white" skin but are not considered "white" (this was actually the subject of Supreme Court case in the 1920s—Takao Ozawa v. United States). --24.147.86.187 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--24.147.86.187 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problem is that as soon as you pick a word, some racist idiot is going to pick it as a term of abuse - and then the rest of us have to scurry around and find another word to use instead. (Steve Baker). That is a problem, the solution to which I don't have - although describing the offended party as a "racist idiot" is not something I'd agree with at all. If anything, they're trying (probably too hard) to eliminate forms of racism, not promote them. A related issue is that words describing a person's colour or ethnic background are often used in contexts where the colour or ethnicity of the person is utterly irrelevant, and where, if the person in question had been Caucasian, no such term would have been considered necessary. This borders on racism. A simple example - compare "I work in a small team - my colleagues' names are Mary, Peter, Ruth and Gordon" with "I work in a small team - my colleagues' names are Mary, Peter, Ruth and Gordon, who's an aborigine". There's nothing offensive about describing an aborigine as an aborigine when the occasion demands, but describing Gordon as such when his ethnic background has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the statement makes an unnecessary distinction in his case - a racial distinction. -- JackofOz 23:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit break

User:Dichotomous, are you refering to my poor attempt at humour in your previous post about the NAACP here[1]? Otherwise I'd love to know who you are refering to, we share the same bad humour! It was indeed to show that the term seems ridiculous to me and completely inacurate. From my experience painting portraits, I find that we are actually all the same colour (well Hue really) just a different value (colorimetry). Keria 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps subconsciously but perhaps you may not be aware of a study I am aware of in which skin color plays a very significant role in regard to conscious and subconscious first impression due to the association of color and dirt or even certain mold and feces. Otherwise would not the Marines wear black instead of white gloves when inspecting recruit barracks for accumulation of dirt? Dichotomous 20:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Mold on food is commonly white, as are maggots, and those tapeworms that sometimes crawl out of my dog’s ass. Maybe that’s why caucasian skin tones are naturally disgusting. MrRedact 00:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any reason that the first sentence has any bearing on the second. Are you suggesting that the notion of dirt being readily apparent on white gloves is discriminatory? — Lomn 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er ... I was refering to the stupid Teletubbies joke. I know racism and more general prejudices play a big part in social interactions. It has some dreadful consequences in terms of all of us living together on a happy planet and strangely enough also has some minor positive aspects in social interactions. These might include the tendency of some kind people to be more helpful and adjust their manners towards people who they recognise as foreign thinking they might need time to adjust to local customs or who might be of different sensitivities. This of course is still racist behaviour (trying to have a npov here - so hard) in the spectrum of which hate takes obviously an overwhelming place. I'd love to read the study you mention. Keria 21:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you think of dirt do you think of black or white, consciously or subconsciously? If the Marines thought of dirt as white they would in all probability use black gloves to reveal accumulation of dirt rather than white gloves. For instance, in a kitchen where cakes and bread are made from flour. That would be a great place to use black gloves to reveal flour which might turn to dirt or for all practical purposes is dirt or waste. What is significant is the fact that psychologically if we did nothing but look for flour all day and knew no other kind of dirt then in our minds whenever we saw something white we might think it was dirt. Psychologically then since most people associate dark things with dirt it is quite understandable if they consciously or subconsciously fall victim to associating dark colored skin with dirt, unless of course they had dark colored skin themselves, which then would tend to make the point why discrimination may be based on skin color in the first place. Dichotomous 21:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To go along with what you say Dichotomous I remember reading about how much harder it was to read expressions on a very dark face, which made people initially distrusting and unconfortable. But on your point, what about coffee and chocolate? I guess these are positive analogies for someone's skin tone. Keria 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I worked in a chocolate or coffee factory then, like the analogy of a bakery, I might have a tendency to initially see some dark colored things as possibly not being dirt. The problem is for the majority of situations. Here is another somewhat related personal example. I have a freckle on my hand. I've truly never noticed it, much less questioned if it was dirt, until after I lived in a house were the previous resident had lots of dogs and cats. It took almost a year to get rid of the last flea and tick but even today when I see that freckle on my hand I do not think it belongs to me. Instead I stare at it until I'm sure its not a tick or flea. Most people who are exposed to dirt in some way have the same regard more or less for skin color, especially if the dirt is filth like feces. Dichotomous 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why such controversy? Many people feel insulted when I call them 'colored.' I don't want to make people feel insulted. So instead of calling them 'colored,' I call them something else. Like 'Bob.' Or 'Sharon.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you were talking on the phone about your new friends Bob and Sharon it might not even come up as to whether they were colored. If it did would you respond that they were colored or Black or White or whatever their color happened to be? Dichotomous 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained before, the power of having a useful, neutral word to describe the colour of someone's skin isn't in talking about Bob and Sharon - you know their names and you use them...duh! It's when you need to point in the direction where 50 yards away several unknown people are standing and say to the person next to you: "Hey - look at that guy over there! He's got that new laptop I've been thinking of getting." - you said "Guy" so that they knew it wasn't one of the women standing over there - 'person' wouldn't have been enough to pick him out of the crowd. But sometimes you need to provide more information "Hey - look at that guy in the red shirt!" - but for all one might wish to be 'colour-blind' and not bring race into a discussion, it's often bloody convenient to say "Hey - look at that white guy over there!" or "Hey - look at that redhead over there!"...or..."Hey - look at the guy with roughly 40% of the maximum quantity of human dermatological melanin!" because - quite honestly, skin colour is often a pretty good visually distinguishing factor. We don't say "Hey - look at the guy with the blue/grey eyes!" because it's really hard to tell eye colour accurately at a distance of more than a couple of feet. That's why we need language for this - and it needs to be convenient to use, clear and as unambiguous as possible. I'm happy to say "Black" or "White" - but I'm unlikely to say "Hey - look at that male person of colour over there!" because it's a useless, vague term. SteveBaker 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why should we see dirt as a negative concept anyway (if that's what you are saying)? 130.88.47.47 09:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - and I don't see how it's relevent. I don't think that even the white supremacist nut-jobs perceive dark skinned people as having 'dirty' skin. This is a specious argument because nobody is arguing against the obvious. SteveBaker 13:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit break

See euphemism treadmill. Almost every word used to describe a minority is considered offensive after a while and is replaced with a new one. The word "retarded" was originally a nice word to replace "imbecile" or "feeble-minded." Eventually, "retarded" developed a negative connotation, so now they're "people with developmental disabilities." Twenty or 30 years from now, there will be another term. Negro is a classic example. It simply means "black." The Spanish word for "black person" is negro. But in the late 60s and early 70s, it was replaced in English with the word "black." There is absolutely no logical reason why "negro" should be considered an insult, but try seeing how far you'll get in society using the word all the time. Colin Powell got in hot water a few years ago for using the word "Chinaman" -- a perfectly acceptable word 50 years ago, but a faux pas now.

What strikes me is the continued use of the word "person of color" to describe a non-white person. White people have color too -- kind of an off-white, peachy color, but a color nonetheless. -- Mwalcoff 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm setting up a computer program to create a palette, rather than just one color of my skin, or at least colors from a larger area than a single pizel. Instead of a single color an individual person might best be represented by a whole pallette. I'll post it here when I'm done. Dichotomous 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the initial palette extraction and photo leave a bit to be desired but are okay for a first attempt. Palette swatch had to occur at least 5 times to be included, although a higher number would have reduced the entire palette a great deal. Photo is of chest area in both incandescent and emitted light from video monitor. All in all the palette generated matches the photo so now on to reducing its size by increasing the minimum number of occurrences. If you are brave enough you may view it here. Dichotomous 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page Colored points out that in colonial America the term "colored" did not mean only "black", but also, in various contexts, Native American, various kinds of southern Europeans and northern Africans, among many others. Although over time the term may have become thought of as exclusive to "blacks", Native Americans, especially mixed blood American citizens, were quite often classed with "free people of color" regardless of whether they had any African ancestry. This was particularly true in the days of Indian slavery and at least up until Native Americans became actual citizens of the US. In the Pacific Northwest (Seattle, for example), there was, and still is, a sizable population of mixed "white" and Native American people. Until surprisingly recently these people were classed as "colored", with all the restrictions of civil rights experienced by other "colored" people, whatever their ancestry. A common form of this, in Seattle, well into and past the mid-20th century, was housing segregation, with many neighborhoods restricted to "white" people only. My point here is only to point out that "colored" has never meant only "black" or "African ancestry" in America. Pfly 06:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typeface used on the U.S. "nutrition facts" panel

Can anyone tell me what font it is that is almost universally used for the nutrition facts label in the United States? (Univers maybe?) Cheers! bdesham ★ 16:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helvetica, according to the first Google hit for "nutrition facts label font": [2] jeﬀjon 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really have no idea why I didn't just Google it first :-) bdesham ★ 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's not Helvetica . Note the slanted cut on top of the letter "t". --Nricardo 04:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nevermind. Should have looked at the whole darned thing. --Nricardo 04:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kazoo

i cant find an mp3 of a kazoo playing, can someone help me out? thanks alot, RobertsZ 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have luck searching specifically for song titles listed in Kazoo#Professional_usage. Beatles, The Cure, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc, should be fairly easy to find recordings of. jeﬀjon 17:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, but that wasnt quite what i was looking for, i just wanted a sample of a kazoo solo, never mind, i have replaced it in the quiz with a hurdy gurdy, a bit more of an obscure instrument. thanks again, RobertsZ 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the finalists in the Belgian preselections of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest used a kazoo in the opening of their song. They're called "Swing". See this page. - 131.211.175.100 12:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imports

Which country exports the most Gold metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.118.158 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa is the world leader in production (USA and Australia are tied for a close second) and since they likely use little gold internally, South Africa is probably the world export leader as well. The US is a net exporter of gold - one of few mineral commodities for which this is the case. More info at this PDF. Cheers Geologyguy 17:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question and answer. But as an aside, what is the point of gold, apart from its medical, engineering, artistic, and pharmaceutical properties? Seriously - you can't eat it, drink it, take it with you when you die, or wear it in public without fear of being mugged, robbed, raped even, and possibly killed. And to lock it away at an exorbitant cost, including insuring it, is as seemingly silly as owning a classic artistic masterpiece and locking it away in a bank vault in Switzerland. So why not invest in a cancer clinic or similar and have a sign outside saying, "Without the contribution of xyza, this clinic, and the countless lives it has saved, could not have happened"? Surely, if someone with too much money wants to stand out from the crowd, isn't something like the latter course of action more likely to draw admiring glances for centuries yet to come? 81.145.240.146 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you CAN eat it [3] [4]! Keria 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And drink it. --LarryMac | Talk 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manius Aquillius would disagree.—eric 22:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "locked up for viewing purposes," it is sold, converted into capital, turned into jewelry, etc. It is a commodity. Also don't confuse the idea of the US as a gold exporting country with the idea that it is the US government which does the gold mining — they don't. --24.147.86.187 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of gold is the same as the point of diamonds, Michelangelo, Picasso et al. A Martian might say these things have no or minimal intrinsic value, but some Earthlings like them very much and because they are rare, and in the artistic cases unique, those who are in a position to sell them put a very high price on them and those who are in a position to buy them think the price is worth paying. Just why we like them so much is another question - but we do, and we're not going to suddenly stop liking them, and that's all that matters as far as supply and demand is concerned. -- JackofOz 22:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and in any case putting value on anything becomes a rather cyclical thing (I think gold is pretty, thus I would pay money for it; even though you don't care what it looks like, if you see I find it to be valuable you might try to get some to sell to me, etc.). (Cf. [[commodity fetishism]) My point was that gold has a value and is a rather key part of the world economy at this point. It doesn't just sit on display; it becomes a way to transfer value into something tangible and then use that as a generic way to exchange value, etc. --24.147.86.187 22:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold is used in jewelery not because of vanity reasons, but more for practical reasons. In elemental form, it reacts poorly with other chemicals, making it very corrosion- and tarnish-resistant, it is hard enough to retain its shape in the face of day-to-day wear and abuse, yet it is easy enough to work with if you are a jeweler that you can create some truly beautiful pieces with it. Gold is unusual in that it is a non-silver metal in its pure form. In other words, gold will still be used in many of its ornamental uses (jewelery, etc.) even if it was as cheap and plentiful as aluminum. As to your larger question of why people spend a lot of money on jewelery to begin with, that's a different question for future philosopical discussions. Sonic Craze 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the good points everyone has added, Gold was a good commodity because it is very dense so it was easy to measure how pure a sample of gold was by checking its density. I think that before modern times it was believed to be the heaviest metal in existence. -- Diletante 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, when the price of gold had been in the doldrums for a while, I was told by a supposedly knowledgeable economic geologist that the price of gold had started to reflect its value as a commodity, for the uses to which it is put, rather than the premium for "Picasso quality". However, given recent trends in the price, this does not seem to have really happened, quite yet. Cheers Geologyguy 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Car Showroom

When you go into a showroom and view the cars on offer do you receive the car you have been looking at and decided to purchase, or a copy of the specific car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.27.99 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are buying a new car, you will probably want to pick which color it is, what options it has, etc. and those likely won't match what is on display in the showroom. If they don't have one like that anywhere on the lot, they can search through a database of dealers to find one that is exactly like the car you want and have it shipped there. If you do just want the car that is on the showroom, then I believe you can just buy it. Recury 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Car dealerships will be more than happy to sell you the very car you're looking at. They'll do the whole order-from-the-factory thing, but they prefer to move the ones that are on the lot first. — Lomn 19:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While out on a test drive a few months ago, the car that was in the showroom was bought, removed, and replaced with another car of the same model. We were a bit surprised to find a different car in the showroom when we got back from the test drive. The color was completely different. My wife looked at me and asked me something like, "Didn't that car used to be beige?" Dismas|^(talk) 19:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last two new cars I've bought were special orders through a dealership. Both times, the sales staff tried very hard to convince me (and my wife, the second time) that I/we would be perfectly happy with the cars they had in stock. Both times, I/we were able, after great difficulty, to convince them that there was a significant difference, to us at least, between "A new car built with the features we want that no one else has tested-to-destruction the shocks, springs, and transmission" and "An almost-new car abused by test driving that is almost what we want". For the same price. They WANT you to buy their demo, but they will settle for you buying a new car, if that gets you to buy from them. -SandyJax 20:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that if you are worried about irrepairable damage to a vehicle arising from a few supervised test drives over the course of a couple hundred miles, then you're definitely looking to buy the wrong car; that model is obviously too fragile and damage-prone to last more than a couple of years of real world day-to-day driving before it falls to pieces. But that's probably what the dealership told you as well. Sonic Craze 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the nature of the car and dealership. When we went to buy my wife's Mazda Protege, there were about 100 almost identical cars sitting out on the lot - we picked one and she drove home in it. At the other extreme - when I bought my first MINI Cooper'S, there was a two month waiting list to get a production slot - the car took a week to manufacture, a week getting to the docks in England, two weeks on a ship across the Atlantic, another week or so in inspection in Charleston, a few days on a truck going to Texas and a couple of days going through final inspection at the dealership. So - anywhere between 4 minutes and 4 months? SteveBaker 03:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

city of Colusa, CA

Is there a listing avaiable on the web that would list names of the known residents of Colusa, CA?67.182.160.72 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Dwight Dowds[reply]

The phone book? 81.93.102.185 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find exactly what you're looking for. It might be helpful to know what you'd like the information for, in case information in other forms might be adequate for your needs. For example, if you wanted the list in order to determine the population of Colusa, there are other ways of determining that. Or if you wanted to see if a number of people you knew who lived in Colusa still live there, there are other ways of determining that. MrRedact 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church kitchens

I am a volunteer, searching for laws that might govern the remodel of a kitchen at church. I have looked through OSHA, State, and County web sites, but nothing jumps out. Where can I find a resource for this information so we will be able to pass an OSHA or Health Department inspection?

ChrisCLKel120 22:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest thing when doing a remodel, is that all your fixtures usually have to have an NSF (NSF International) seal on them. In any case, it might be best to get an initial inspection from your local Health Department. They can give you a list of what they're looking for, and may even give you a punch-list of things you need to change. --Mdwyer 22:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do most any sort of construction work (including remodeling), you're normally required to get a building permit. Normally these are given out by the local municipality (e.g. city clerk's office). The place where you get the building permit from should be able to point you toward the relevant regulations. At the very least, they should be able to tell you who you should be talking to instead. It might also pay to talk to the local business association/better business bureau/businessman's association (whatever serves as the local association for business owners). The laws for non-profits will be similar to those for commercial establishments. And if you're hiring a general contractor to do the work, they should be able to help out with permitting/regulations as well. -- 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.112.105 (talk)