Miscellaneous desk
< August 19	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 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.

August 20

FINIS LANGDON BATES AND MARTIN VAN BUREN BATES

ARE THESE TWO RELATED SOME HOW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.179.52 (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no connection between them - the only coincidence is that they both toured with circusses for a while...aside from that, I don't see anything. SteveBaker (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate uses for Shampoos

Suppose one is showering after a long day of cardiovascular aerobics and sweating...

Can shampoo be used to clean the body?
Can conditioner be used to clean the body?
Can conditioner be used to clean the hair in the absence of shampoo?
Can body wash/soap be used to clean the hair?

Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shampoo says that "soap bonds to oils with such affinity that it removes too much if used on hair. Shampoo uses a different class of surfactants balanced to avoid removing too much oil from the hair." About.com says it doesn't do much good either. I wouldn't imagine it'd do that much damage if used infrequently (but IANAD, Wikipedia does not give hair care advice, etc etc...) — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 03:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of all of these fancy cleaning materials is to reduce the surface tension of the water to make it "wetter" and to act as a surfactant to help it mix with (and therefore remove) otherwise immiscible oils from your skin/hair/whatever. Pretty much anything with soap in it does the same thing - shampoo, washing up liquid, it's all pretty much the same stuff. All of the other junk they put in it is largely just to help with the marketting and justify the price. So, yeah - by all means wash hair with body wash or wash body with shampoo...or use Dawn washing up liquid. The results are going to be pretty much the same.

There have been experiments to show that washing your hair rarely - and with water alone - produces the better results than any hair care products - although it takes a while for your hairs' natural oil to build up after years of destroying them with surfactants - so things get worse before they get better!

SteveBaker (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbolene is the best thing for skin, although it's probably better to wash hair with conditioner. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the market, there is "Hair and Body Wash" for men. I won't mention the company's name because they don't pay me to advertise, but I'm sure you can find it (and perhaps other brands) in the shampoo aisle.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But can hair conditioner be effectively used to clean the body and hair? Acceptable (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, they aren't required to disclose their ingredients - so it's hard to know in every case. If it makes bubbles and lather when you mix it with a little water - then it contains a surfactant and should work fine. If it doesn't, then probably not. SteveBaker (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wmc

hia cant u tell me wat does a president do or job on a committee of the club thank u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.159.216 (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly a bunch of people elect a chairperson who runs the meetings, so the president is the chairperson and controls the way the meeting goes. The president is careful to spell things out to other people so the records and tasks are really clear. Then there are other positions lower than that held by people who do the grunt work. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the organization, the meetings may be run according to a set of rules--a common example is Robert's Rules of Order. If the organization you're particularly interested in has a set of rules, try consulting them--often they describe in some detail the specific responsibilities and powers of the officers of the organization. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By WMC, do you mean Working Men's Club? The President of a WMC runs meetings and mediates disputes on the committee and the other things Julia mentioned. They will probably use Robert's Rules. The president will probably also liaise with higher levels of the organisation, like the CI&U), and be the public face of the club. If there is publicity, or a scandal or media involvement, the president's face will be the one they see. Steewi (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalism

Often, religions have their own holy religious book. Christians have the Bible. Muslims have the Qur'an. Jews have the Tanakh. Mormons have both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. But what about Unitarian Universalists? Do they have any holy religious book? Do they believe any book to be inspired by God or inerrant and infallible? If so, then do they believe the Bible to be inspired by God or inerrant and infallible? If not, then what book do they believe to be inspired by God or inerrant and infallible? Bowei Huang (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Unitarian Universalism#Approach to sacred writings? Algebraist 08:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the just possibly apocryphal Unitarian Jihad. — OtherDave (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to make absolute statements about Unitarian Universalism. While its most immediate roots are in Christianity, modern UUism is a highly syncretic, highly independent religion that surpasses all others in sheer lack of unifying features. There is no body or person who has any authority over Unitarian Universalists; the Unitarian Universalist Association, for instance, is a loose gathering that generally vaguely represents its members. While even Congregational Christian churches are joined by a substantial number of basic beliefs, the Seven Principles adopted by UU churches are loose statements of belief. Any given Unitarian Universalist may believe in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Qu'ran—and some do—but by and large, UUs have no central text and tend to reject inerrancy and literalism. Consider the poll results among UUs:

Humanist – 54%
Agnostic – 33%
Earth-centered – 31%
Atheist – 18%
Buddhist – 16.5%
Christian – 13.1%
Pagan – 13.1%

Deltabeignet (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pro snowboarding

can u become a pro snowboarder at any age or do u have to start off young? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.68.76 (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "pro" do you mean paid professional or just clever? Either way go for it and be sure to document/video your best moves in case of later notability. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely go for video; in case your new career doesn't work out you'll have the chance to earn back your medical expenses on a certain American television show. --Danh, 70.59.119.73 (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think with any activity that requires a great deal of physical skill, practice and dedication, you're going to benefit from starting early. I'm sure you can become a pro snowboarder at any age (well, you know, up to the point where you're just too old for that kind of strenous activity), provided that you make sure you have the training, the dedication and the physique it requires, but a guy who starts at 15 is going to have a huge advantage over a guy who starts at 30 -- those fifteen years of experience are going to count for a lot. It'd definitely be an uphill struggle, even if you'd been snowboarding as a hobby for years. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting section in Daniel Levitin's This Is Your Brain on Music. He talks about expertise requiring roughly 10,000 hours of practice. For example, if you spent 20 hours a week practicing a musical instrument, that's roughly 1,000 hours a year for 10 years. This is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics, but the general idea is that you need a great deal of time working in some field in order to master nuances, gain automaticity, integrate elements. — OtherDave (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think there's a lot of truth to that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British dentist

why do english people have such bad teeth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} Nanonic (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of dentists may play a role[1]. Do Australians alos have poor teeth? Or Germans very good ones? Rmhermen (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't French women shave their armpits? --Endless Dan 12:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been posted several times on other question boards and forums outside WP. Feed the troll if you want to!!

As a Brit who moved to North America one of the little things I've been puzzled by is that North Americans place a huge emphasis on teeth. Americans particularly obsess over their teeth, making huge efforts to make sure they have the best they can. By contrast Brits don't do that, and that leads to the sterotype of "Brits have bad teeth". I don't know a reason for this obsession but I've come up with some theories.

Americans generally have health insurance which includes free dental cover, which includes things like tooth straightening (Brits would call this 'cosmetic' dentistry). It's therefore normal for American children to be wearing braces to correct even the tiniest tooth defect. In Britain this cosmetic dentisty isn't covered by government health funding and so would cost a fair bit of money;it isn't done by most families for anything other than correcting severe problems.
Americans place a much higher value on physical appearance than Brits. American politicians, even at local level, are uniformly good looking - so are press officers, spokespeople and even athletes. This means that pretty much everyone you see on TV in the US has good teeth, even if they are just the local police chief (who probably had to be elected to his position, remember).
It's also true that there is an abundance of dentists in North America. Here in Canada we have a doctor shortage, such that many people don't even have a regular doctor. Dentists on the other hand are plentiful, and compete for your business.

DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's for many reasons - we have traditionally fed our kids on sugary comfort food from birth - we dipped their comforters in syrups etc. - we were given concentrated and sweetened orange juice to supplement their diet after WW2 during severe rationing and the habit continued - our infant, junior, and senior schools all had tuck shops that sold jammy dodgers etc., - our schools were surrounded by sweetie shops and ice-cream vans that tempted school kids to part with their money - we served up sticky hot puddings after lunch and dinner - and we gave them sweetened soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi drinks instead of water. And when we grew up, we continued to eat sweets and chocolates, and drank sweet alcoholic drinks like beer and whisky, and latterly wine - and we forgot all about the effect on our teeth. I am 61 and have all my own teeth which is quite unusual in one coming from a large family of working-class children. Until I started working at age 16, my teeth too were quite bad, but thankfully, I signed on with an NHS dentist and have visited him/her every 6 months since. And now I can afford it, and now that the NHS won't pay for me to have any cosmetic work done on the NHS, I choose to pay privately. And thankfully, my own children and grandchildren are emulating me, and we all have lovely teeth and sweet breath. Hope that goes some way to answering the OP. 92.21.185.182 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd turn the question around and ask why do so many Americans have such unnaturally even and shiny teeth? DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having teeth that look great and having healthy teeth is not always exactly the same. American dentists have succeeded in convincing the populace that a "perfect smile" is essential for a happy and successful life. Therefore every kid whose parents can afford it have braces and and every adult who can afford it has their teeth whitened or capped. The result: the industry keep generating money ($70 billion a year! [2]) and those who have the money have perfect looking teeth. In contrast, the British dental system was, for many years at least, government funded, and therefore had different priorities. The NHS didn't particularly care whether your teeth were skew or imperfectly aligned, they used the money to ensure that, theoretically, everyone had access to basic dental healthcare. However, that is now changing to an American system, so expect to see more Brits with stunning smiles in the future.

I would note that, while American middle classes like to joke about the English having bad teeth, they conveniently forget the 45 million Americans without any health insurance - pretty much equivalent to the entire population of England. I very much doubt those people have million dollar smiles either. Dostioffski (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Braces are far more common among English children now. In the past, the bullying they induced meant that for most people they just wouldn't have been worth the hassle. There is a massive difference between the dental health of the older and younger generations. I would be interested to know what the difference is between the dental health of younger adult Britons and younger adult Americans - including the American poor. I shouldn't think it is very great. Luwilt (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Thanks to celebrities being imaged to the max and presented as role models there's a distortion of what's cute -- I like to think of dental individualists like Jim Carrey, Patricia Arquette and the orchid thief in Adaptation. For Brits there's the amazingly attractive younger Johnny Rotten. As with other professionals affected by effective preventions such as fluroride in water, dentists are heavily into overservicing (by hooked or by crooked I take it). Julia Rossi (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to reiterate the sentiment that teeth have high, high symbolic value in the USA. To have good teeth is practically considered a birthright of the upper and middle class, just like having a well-manicured (and often heavily chemically treated) front lawn. The idea that good teeth represent prosperity and ability is deep-seated enough to be intuitive to most Americans, I imagine.

As an aside, in research as to which sorts of gory images of the effects of smoking best motivate people to quit, in the US, anyway, images of the long-term effects on one's teeth by cigarettes are much more effective than images of the long-term effects on one's lungs. Go figure. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while on my morning walk in my Boston-area town, I passed by no fewer than four dental practices, each with at least three dentists working in them, perhaps more. We have dentists coming out of our ears! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the US you can tell if someone grew up with fluoride in the water just by looking at their teeth. That's true of over 50% of the population. The rest just take better care of their teeth. Apteva (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACCRA GHANA

Hello Everybody, Is Ghana considered to be offshore where there are offshore banks??and is Ghana still under British territories?? Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana became fully independent in 1957. See Ghana and British overseas territories. List_of_banks_in_the_United_Kingdom does not include any Ghana-based banks. SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Ghana has been an independent nation since 1957; it was the first African nation to achieve independence from the United Kingdom.

I cannot answer the first part of the question because the terminology "offshore" (outside of strictly geographical uses, and then only in relation to things a relatively short distance away from the shore) utterly defeats me, and since I will never willingly use this word outside of that context, I simply cannot bring myself to research what complexities of meaning it's acquired of recent years. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our offshore banking article, Ghana is an "offshore" banking centre, but the references don't seem to support the article. There has been fairly radical change in banking practices in the last decade or so, mostly as a response to organized crime and the events of Sept. 11, 2001; countries which insist on keeping their banking information opaque tend to find themselves unable to exchange funds with the rest of the world, so the "offshore financial centres" are a rapidly depleting category. Franamax (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one stinkin' hour later - yes :) if you look at our articles on offshore banking and offshore financial centres, Ghana now has some sources claiming that it is indeed an "offshore banking" centre. Those sources also discuss how Ghana intends to avoid the criminal aspects of banking secrecy. Franamax (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research,I didn"t think Ghana had off shore banking,but it appears that is does. Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.110.222 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocolitical

I have often heard it said that if the world were to end in 1 days time, alot of people would be having sex. So is this true, and what is the most common past time people would choose in this situation? is it sex or is it spend the day with my dog, or walk in the woods etc. Further more I have heard it said that if one were to be diagnosed with a terminal illness one would do allkinds of extravagant things before one dies, why do terminally ill people not do thses things when they finally are in that possition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first question is entirely unanswerable. As to the second, consider that many terminally ill people are sufficiently ill (or insufficiently moneyed) to preclude said extravagant things. — Lomn 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the world were going to end in 1 day, I would call my stockbroker - there could be some real buying opportunities in the market. :) (also I would edit-war on Wikipedia and get a bunch of pages protected in my version for 2 days) Franamax (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a lot of these ideas - like "doing all kinds of extravagant things" is that everyone else will be doing the same kinds of thing. You can't be "extravagant" because that would entail spending money and nobody in their right mind is going to spend the last day of their life at work! So the shops are all shut - there are no restaurants open - no Taxis or public transport is running. Money is worth nothing...in fact nothing you can't use in the next 24 hours has any value - so even barter is dead. The police are almost certainly not working - so criminals can do what they want. If sex is indeed the imperative - then rape, child molestation, etc (without any risk of consequences) would likely spike. Really - life in that last day would be utter freaking chaos. But if the first people to find out really believed it - then you might never even know about it. Do the politicians who first find out want to waste an entire hour of their last 24 telling the world? Radio and TV stations would probably shut down before they could get the news out. Pretty soon after the announcement, you might find you have no power or phones...certainly it would be "patchy" at best. You (and almost everyone else) are still wondering what the heck is happening - perhaps hearing rumors but not much more - all the way up to the moment when the planet gets eaten by the giant purple aardvark. SteveBaker (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT The second part of your question, many people who find that they are going to die very soon are unable to do extravagant things like skydiving, new sexualities, high speed racing, etc. because they don't have the energy and well-being to do so. If you have metastasized cancer and are on death's door, you will barely be able to get out of bed, let alone enjoy yourself sexually. It's an annoyance, but there you go. Steewi (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to watch Last Night by the brilliant young Canadian film director Don McKellar. It’s about this subject precisely. It’s also just an excellent film.

Also, for a fascinating second take on this idea, examine Le Grand Macabre, Hungarian composer György Ligeti’s only opera. The opera, based on a play by Michel De Ghelderode, concerns what happens when a prophet foretells the end of the world. Everybody goes crazy. However the next morning the world is still there. . . just not in quite the same condition. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I heard I had a week or so to live I would not do extravagant things even if I had the ability. I'd want to spend time doing all the little things that I take for granted, the things I'd feel I'd really be missing. Hanging out with my dog would be much higher than jumping out of a plane with a parachute. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 98.217. Sure, people prone to crime will be enticed by the loss of law enforcement, but I imagine the majority of people will want to spend their last hours with their family and loved ones.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living Abroad

My entire family (self, son, daughter-in-law, and grandchild) are alarmed at the path our native country has taken and wish to get out of U.S. Are there any folks out there who have expatriated, and if so to where? We are seeking any relevant data, including visa requirements, cost of living, requirements for becoming permanent residents, etc. We would welcome all information that could help make a choice of new place easier. If any of you Americans living abroad have advice and/or information, please submit an article for us.

Thanks, mama T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.238.134 (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These colors don't run, mama! LoL - Seriously, I believe this same question came up a few months back on the Help Desk. Maybe a kind soul will be able to locate it for you. Also, try a Google search. Something like Americans living abroad. I'm sure there are a few support groups out there. Were you thinking of any specific country? Or continent?? --Endless Dan 15:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has very low entry requirements (especially for USians), a very similar culture, almost identical cost of living and is convenient for getting back to visit relatives who don't share your views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Very low?" I'm not sure Citizenship and Immigration Canada would necessarily agree. In any event, that link has lots of info for people who are considering immigrating to Canada. — OtherDave (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know a person who has seriously considered a similar move for similar reasons and may yet make that move, partly depending on the outcome of the next election. This person ended up choosing Canada for the reasons DJ Clayworth mentions; however, the entry requirements for Canada are not necessarily low. The principal applicant needs to amass sufficient points (as explained on the linked immigration site) to merit admission to Canada. Points are awarded for educational and professional qualifications, for being under 49 years of age, for connections to Canada, and for proficiency in English or French. People from the US have an advantage only insofar as they tend to be fluent in English. Once the principal applicant and his or her immediate family are admitted (a process which tends to take over a year) and take residence and find a decent livelihood in Canada, the principal applicant is likely to be able to sponsor other family members such as parents. Australia and New Zealand use a similar point system but have a shorter list of qualifying occupations than Canada. The UK is in the process of implementing a point system. (The UK also has a relatively high cost of living relative to salaries.) Other countries may require that an applicant be sponsored by an employer who can demonstrate that the applicant has unique qualifications that cannot be met by a citizen of that country. Marco polo (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly we left the UK to live in France - but French neighbours have just gone the other way! be sure your actual lifestyle will fit the country you choose to go to.86.197.22.94 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

I'd vote for the Philippines. The cost of living is extremely low. The downside is that Manila is extremely dirty and overcrowded. If you go live in a smaller town, heading north, the further you go, the lower the living expenses are going to be and (if your skin is white), the more popular you'll be in town. However, the further north you go, the further you're getting from any decent medical services, so I'd only recommend that if you're in good health. Useight (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on their reasons for leaving the US, the OP may not want to move to such a close US ally. Algebraist 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Cuba? It has a warm climate, a low cost of living and very good state-funded medical care. Travel by air to see the in-laws could be difficult, but Florida is only a short boat ride away. ;-)) Astronaut (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]