Miscellaneous desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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.

February 13

Vitreous China different than Percelain?

Are there any differences between " Vitreous China " or "Porcelain"?Mfroess (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an obvious answer to your question, but have you read our articles on porcelain and vitreous? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bovlb (talk • contribs) 09:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short, from the googling I've been doing, I think that:

Porcelain is a type of vitreous china
Porcelain is not well a defined label, as noted in our article.
Vitreous china is well defined, not least by standards bodies concerned with sanitary ware, such as the British Standards Institute, which publishes BS 3402: 1969 High grade ceramic ware used for sanitary appliances. That defines VC as being made from a mixture of white burning clays and finely ground minerals which after firing at high temperature, and when unglazed, does not have a mean value of water absorption greater than 0.5% of the dry weight.
Given that VC definition, and the fuzzyness of the Porcelain definition, I tend to think that VC could be described as Porcelain (giving rise to the saying, "pointing percy at the porcelain".)
in the main, the term porcelain appears to be used when describing crockery and electrical insulators, and VC when describing sanitary ware. However some sanitary ware vendors use the term porcelain, perhaps seeking some sort of competitive advantage arising out of the word's association with highly priced crockery.

I hope that's enough... --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Debt (U.S.)

Can anyone present to me the national debt (not deficit) graph for recent years, I can't seem to find it. I am mostly interested in the debt from about 1999-2002, but I would prefer a graph. also, PLEASE POST YOUR ANSWER BOTH HERE AND ON MY TALK PAGE. Thanks PwnerELITE (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National debt: [1]
As percentage of GDP: [2]
Corrected for inflation: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legal?

Is it legal to hack into a site for the purpose of helping its owners develop better security? Is it legal to stage a bank robbery for the purpose of helping the bank's owners develop better security? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.125.54 (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your intentions when committing an illegal act might serve as mitigation once you;ve been convicted, but will not prevent convictions. I vaguely remember some instances of this, where people prosecuted for hacking offered a defence of "helping its owners develop better security" by revealing security weaknesses but were nevertheless convicted. --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. I've read news articles about hackers getting permission beforehand from site owners to test the security. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That an intresting question for the bank one. Im courious to find out. I dont see any reason whynot if the police and owners knew. And of course the employes notified or signed a waiver. BonesBrigade 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the customers? This can be a traumatic experience and shouldn't be done on their expense. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reconsider your use of the term 'hack'. I am assuming you mean 'cracking' as opposed to 'hacking'.

Firstly, a disclaimer. Wikipedia does NOT and cannot give legal advice, On legal matters please seek appropriate professional advice.

That said there are numerous way in which organisation test the security of their systems, right through the life-cycle of such systems. Some of these methods may involve 'white-hat' tactics which IMPORTANTLY are done with the full knowledge of the bank and regulatory authorities concerned. Some organisation also use 'plants' of people or evidence to test procedures and systems, However again this takes place with the knowledge and informed consent of senior management and under strict controls.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard 4 has a similar premise to the OP's question. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneakers (film) is another film based on hacking with permission in order to test security, but the permission is the key point. I doubt that claiming security testing will make people any better disposed to you as breaking into a bank and leaving a note saying "haha, your alarm doesn't work" will. Steewi (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

developing countries

y r dey poor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.125.54 (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because if they weren't they would be called developed countries. --Sean 14:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Developing country is probably the more relevant link. The reasons for a country's status are complex, debated, and distinct from any other country. Any encompassing answer is by nature a rough generalization. However, as our developing country article notes, theories of decolonization, liberation theology, Marxism, anti-imperialism, and political economy all attempt to explain the origin and nature of developing countries. — Lomn 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People critical of Globalisation explain it here [4]. It's a fat article so just go to this section, scroll down to "Critics argue that: " where it explains how poorer countries are further disadvantaged. Another cause is World Trade. An example is Bob Geldorf's Africa series where he asks why the coffee producers are still living in huts and not on yachts in the Riviera, because their prices are fixed and they cannot sell in their own country or to each other to make extra, only to their (international) contract buyer etc. These are World Trade rules that need reforming [5]. I was sleepy at the time, so no more details, sorry. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Clan System

Can i get a more details on "Gotra: Brahmdaswa" of 'More' surname-96 main clans???????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosh moore (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Maratha clan system and Gotra. Xn4 20:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Stores, History of?

I was reading the Pet Store article and was wondering if anyone had a good source about the history of the phonemena to help improve the article.

Would I be right in thinking that they are largely a twentieth Century phonemena now in decline?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would find "now in decline" to be highly controversial, unless you're making a distinction between small independently-owned shops and the present growth of pet megastores. — Lomn 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Traditional' pet store is what I meant, I'd stil like more info on the history though ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a C20th phenomenon. People have kept animals as pets for hundreds of years, though they would originally have been sold in the marketplace.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3some

I have 3 questions: A, how and why did the Uk get ibvolved in the Napoleonic Wars? B, please direct me to an article concerning Israeli German relations, and C, please direct me to an article on german Palastinian relations. Thanks guys and girls, we all do a wonderful job here, especially Clio the Muse who answers most questions indepth. Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. see Napoleonic Wars and First Coalition, and more particularly William Pitt the Younger#French Revolution. France was threatening to export revolution. various monarchies were not happy. France got more uppity, and forced Pitt's hand. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Germany-Israel relations --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I still do not understand, if England had already had a revolution, and was run in a democratic style, why did they not support the French ideal of spreading revolution in Europe to promote the freedoms of people there. The English were free, the French were free, and the French wanted others to be free, why fight this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England got its revolution out of the way very early, and was a happy monarchical semi-democracy. Power in England still rested with the aristocracy, not with the working people. There was considerable fear in England and Europe that revolution on the uncivilised (i.e. anti-aristocracy) French model would be exported - even to England. England's parliament was, if you like, a bastion of the power elite, not a place of the people. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that this was not just an issue of aristocracy versus democracy. After all, by the time the Napoleonic Wars were in full swing, France was a dictatorship rather than a democracy. The big issue here was one of power. France and England had been contesting each other for dominance of Europe and of global sea trade since the decline of Spain in the 17th century. (Of course the traditional enmity between France and England goes back even further to the Hundred Years War.) England, in the form of Great Britain, had gained the upper hand in the Seven Years War. With his continental conquests, Napoleon threatened British power. Because of the importance of continental Europe to British trade and the British economy, Napoleon's actions especially threatened the economic basis of British power. There was also a fear that if Napoleon consolidated his power on the continent, he might try to invade Britain itself, perhaps by way of Ireland. So the British took the offensive against France as much to protect their power and sovereignty as to defend their social and political order. Marco polo (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LEGAL HELP

if a person has been caught on an international airport (IN USA), who is not the national of that country (if drugs are found in his/her luggage which the person doesnt know where it came from) what would be the investigation procedure the person would have to go through, what rights would the person be given (such as arranging a lawyer, contacting parents so they can do something in this regard, would the embassy of the country be informed>) and would the police of that area (airport) be willing to talk to lawyers( if they call for first hand info) of what happened and who CAN BE CONTACTED (ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW BODY) which can try to lawfully RESCUE the person

PLEASE DONT GIVE ABSURD COMMENTS THAT THIS QUESTION SHOULD NOT BE POSTED HERE OR SORT OF....THAT WOULD BE HIGHLY APPRECIATED.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link that might help - Tips for Traveling Abroad. --Onorem♠Dil 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arrested in a country which is not your own, your first point of call should be your embassy. In most countries, they are legally required either to notify or to allow you to contact your embassy if you make such a request. The US is one of the countries where they are required to notify your embassy if they arrested you. See [6] and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. However as the US pulled out of the optional protocol, you have no standing in the International Court of Justice if they deny you your rights. Note that in any case while International Court of Justice decisions are generally binding, the only way they can be enforced is via the UN. As the US has veto power in the UN security council, even if the US had not pulled out of the optional protocol you would still basically have little protection. To put it a different way, if the US decided to fuck you around and their courts agree, you're fucked. No one is going to be able to rescue you... Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB I don't however want to sound too pessimistic. The US does seem to have, as with a number of developed countries, good legal protections for everyone arrested in that country. You would generally be entilted to most of the legal protections any citizen of the US would get. Perhaps the biggest problem in the US, is that your fate seems to rest way to much on the competecy of your lawyer so if you can't afford a good one, you may find yourself with major problems. All this is provided of course the US doesn't decide to you are a terrorist or similar undesirable and send you to Guantanamo Bay or other black site. Nil Einne (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not a US citizen, a person is still subject to US law when in the country, including entering it. They can notify an embassy and they might give legal aid, but a person committing a crime on US soil can be put in jail in the US. For similar cases not related to the US, see Schappelle Corby and [[7]]. Steewi (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes

Can a snake keep themselves warm by wraping around something? If they can, can someone give me a sorce that says that?--76.176.130.141 (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's just basic heat transfer. Snakes and other reptiles often sun on warm rocks and such, and this is no different in principle. Whether or not a snake will opt to warm in such fashion is another matter, though. — Lomn 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cock

how warm is a cock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.125.54 (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The body temperature of chickens, and so presumably cocks, is between 39.8 °C and 43.6 °C. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can hear the sniggering from here. But hang on in there, you might learn something. The temperature of a penis will be slightly less than 36.8 °C if exposed (low volume to surface ratio) and probably a snug 36.8 °C whilst in the trousers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to refrain from posting those same values. Just. I think you're being overly precise and a little optimistic. The warmth of the trousers will have an effect, as will whether or not it is flaccid. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely too if the penis has just been subjected to rigiorous movement it would be hotter? Especially inside a cavity warmer then 36.8 °C? Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any merit in covering all cases to satisfy a presumed Beavis or Butthead. Friction will do it, yes, however I doubt - friction aside - that the vaginal canal is warmer then 36.8 °C. But what do I know. Recalling the memorable phrase from The Virgin Suicides (film), I was never an elevn year-old girl (nor a doctor, come to that). --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if you want a cavity warmer than human body temperature, it would need to be a non-human cavity. Dogs' body temperature is warmer than humans'. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Trovatore (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the temperature seems a bit odd to me, I suspect it may be wrong, wouldn't most internal cavities be warmer then the exterior of the body? The surface of the body is usually lower then the body temperature, clothes or not... Of course some human body temperatures are naturally higher then 36.8 anyway Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the poster was referring to live cocks? Maybe he/she wanted to know what's the temperature you should cook cocks to? Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. In that case, 165F or 74C. See Critical Control Point or Temperature (meat). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if it's one of these cocks or one of these cocks, the temperature might vary from time to time through a range of 60°C or more. --Anonymous, 00:12 UTC, February 14, 2008.

But have you considered that this may be a matter of emotional rather than physical warmth? The cocks I have met (feathered type) tend to be warm not in the sense of friendliness, but in the sense of aggression. On the other hand the emotional state of the penis is generally closely related to that of its owner. SaundersW (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

asscrack

in movies sometimes the guys break peoples necks with their cheeks. what is the maximum force that can be applied with ones cheeks and can a man break someones neck with his cheeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.125.54 (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not by any muscle action, but presumably by jumping from a height and landing arse (or ass) first onto someone's head. These are rather juvenile questions. Without wishing to call you out or anything, don't you think a certain amount of growing up is in order? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This begs the question of exactly what kind of movies he/she is watching. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it doesn't beg the question at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.19.82 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it merely asks the question. --hydnjo talk 02:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I didn't know that actually meant something. You learn something every day. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay no heed to these weirdos. In insisting on a particular meaning for "beg the question", they fatally undermine their own position by not applying the same logic to the word "beg" itself, which clearly doesn't mean anything like what they claim it to mean. If they can arbitrarily redefine the word "beg" to suit their purposes, then we can certainly redefine the phrase "beg the question" to suit ours, and be far more justified in doing so, too.- 88.110.41.7 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which begets the question, should we go to war with these phrase pedants? --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never trust a movie, it's a lot harder to break someone's neck then usually shown in the movies (but don't try it!) Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Maori Belief Mana all about ?

I need to find out about the Maori (Australasian Tribe) Belief Mana for a project. So fas all I have managed to find out about it is the name ? Can anybody tell me where I can find information including what it means who/what posses it , what it means , that sort of thing. Or can somebody tell me about it. Thanks

Emily

90.196.15.58 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read mana? Algebraist 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might help too if you read the Māori article since if you are going to write/talk about Mana in Māori culture, you should know more about them then 'Australasian tribe'. There are a lot of good websites out there to help you learn about the Māori, try [www.maori.org.nz] for starters Nil Einne (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that notion really primary over the mana of Vishnu? Vishnu's mana is not even mentioned at mana (disambiguation) -- this seems wrong to me. I don't know enough about it to write the article myself. --Trovatore (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely it should be mentioned in the disambig. But as for primary, I would suggest yes since it doesn't seem that important a concept when it comes to Vishnu (based on the lack of coverage in wikipedia, e.g. the only article I found which mentions it is Samudra manthan and on the web) but you can't hope to talk about or understand traditional Māori culture or people without understanding mana Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fork etiquette

According to the fork etiquette article American style usage is "The knife is held in the right hand and the fork in the left. Holding food to the plate with the fork tines-down, a single bite-sized piece is cut with the knife. The knife is then placed on the right edge of the plate (always with the blade facing inward) and the fork transferred to the right hand, with the left hand falling to the lap"...

Seriously? I mean really is this just some silly thing that nobody actually does or is it common practice? The bit i'm struggling to comprehend is why you would put down the knife, switch hands, lower the hand you previously had the fork in and then eat. That, to me, sounds neither sensible nor really of any benefit to anybody - either in terms of aesthetics, efficiency, tidyness, control etc. I just wondered whether this is just one of those silly 'rules' that society claims to have but which is no longer followed by any meaningful amount of the population...Similarly under 'table manners' there is stuff listed as manners in English which in my 25-odd years of life (across various standards of society) I have never seen...among others "If you’re eating a dessert, your fork (if you have one) should be held in the left hand and the spoon in the right.", "Your napkin should never be screwed up. Nor should it be folded neatly as that would suggest that your host might plan to use it again without washing it - just leave is neatly but loosely." and "Salt & pepper should be passed together." All of these appear to be just made up on the spot. There may be examples of people considering these 'manners' but they are by no means widespread. I guess it's where we draw the line but having read the other cultures ones I would have no idea which are 'real' manners and which are just the overly-fussy stuff that virtually no-one in reality actually knows about/cares about/follows. ny156uk (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an american of a certain age, I can say that this ridiculous practice of switching the fork from the left to the right hand for a single bite was the "proper" etiquette used when I was growing up in the 1950s. The much more logical European system of keeping the fork in the left hand was seen as impolite and common. I switched to the later in the 1960s, deeming the method I was taught as silly. However, the American practice is still being used--you can see it occasionally in restaurants.--Eriastrum (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I grew up in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s, I was trained to do exactly as is described above. I still do it that way, mainly as a matter of habit. However, as a right-handed person, I think that it might be difficult for me to keep the fork in my left hand. It is definitely easier for me to keep the fork in my right hand, except when I am using a knife, which then becomes the implement that needs my right-handed attention. That said, I tend to eat foods that do not require a knife (e.g. pasta, Asian dishes), so I need to switch back and forth only when I am served a traditional meal with a big slab of meat or fish. Marco polo (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one of those American things my parents were ignorant of, and thus never thought me (thank God). If someone tries to make me do that the knife is going from the right hand into their left eye socket. However, despite my vehement opposition to this piece of "etiquette", I can see some scant logic to it. One is for control, as Marco Polo stated, the other is the historical idea of the left hand being unsuitable to be used for certain things. But why is this only etiquette in the United States? Everyone I know from Europe laughs at its silliness, but Europe is where a lot of American etiquette comes from. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Europeans are more ambidextrous. The left hand of a right-handed person is less able to convey a fork full of food, to the mouth without spillage. If it is a piece of meat, then the left hand should have no problem. If it is a load of peas, then the right hand has an advantage. Small dogs lurking under the table are said to like old people and small children, because they spill the most food. Perhaps to that category could be added those right handed people who use the left hand all the time for maneuvering the fully laden fork. As for usefulness of cutlery as weapons, there is much to be said for jabbing with a fork as opposed to a table knife, which tends to be dull at the end. The Manson family used both knives and forks in their killings. Edison (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the left hand of a person who is right handed and has been brought up to convey a forkful of food only in their right hand is less able to convey a fork full of food. Personally I'm right handed, and I find it harder to bring a laden fork to my mouth with my right hand than my left because my left hand is used to it and my right is not. Anyway, if you're loading the fork (rather than conveying a piece of speared meat), surely switching hands is terribly inconvenient because you no longer have the knife in the right hand to appropriately load the fork? And if you load the fork before switching, you would surely increase spillage compared to keeping the fork in the left hand. No, I think this is just like eating with the tines pointing down. I can argue that I do it because I don't have to lift my wrist so high, or that it looks better, but really it's just because I was brought up that way. Skittle (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in Islam, people are generally supposed to eat with the right hands, but that's generally believed to be primarily because they don't (or didn't) use utensils so they are literally eating with their right hand and the left hand is used for Islamic toilet etiquette. Also, according to the fork etiquette article, forks only became widespread in Europe long after the US had been established. Therefore it isn't really that surprising that the etiquette developed differently and as most etiquette is some degree of madness, I guess it's understandable each came to a different degree of madness in different areas. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Original research/opinion follows): the primary purpose of most rules of etiquette (in which I include spelling, punctuation, and prescriptive grammar, by the way) is to distinguish those who follow them from those who don't, whatever the purported ~~rationalisation~~ reason might be. In the light of this, it is clearly desirable for said rules to be difficult to acquire or to carry out, otherwise everybody could follow them easily and they would lose that function. --ColinFine (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Opinion follows) The primary purpose of etiquette is to refrain from making other people uncomfortable. There are unfortunately those who absolutely revel in making other people as uncomfortable as possible: they usually are the ones who claim that etiquette is all about being picky and "fitting in" and that anyone with brains doesn't bother with it. It's an obvious excuse made by people who care more about their own "rights" (including the right to gross people out) than other people's comfort. It's also very shortsighted because people do judge you on your manners and etiquette; someone who ignores it may get hired, but he won't be promoted to a position where interacting with others is necessary.

Of course, the vast, overwhelming bulk of etiquette rules don't address which fork to use but things like putting your elbows on the table, not closing your mouth while chewing, barging through doors in front of older persons, etc. The people I know who think etiquette is for suckers universally do these things, and think that those who don't are suckers who have been co-opted by evil, evil society not to be "honest". --NellieBly (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One story, which I can't find a source on right now, says that transferring the fork to the right hand was used as a secret signal during the American Revolution. If everyone at the table was doing it, then they were all on the side of the revolution and could talk freely about it. Anyone cramming food into his mouth left-handed was not to be trusted. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 04:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't agree with the claim made in the fork etiquette article that forks did not become widespread in the US until the 19th century Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a myth. The fact that the fork wan't introduced into america until the 19th century has something to do with it actually. I'll explain in a sec, it's lunchtime. Cryo921 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't agree with the commentators that seem to think this practice is passé in the states. Speaking as an American, yes, we really do do it, in all but the most utterly casual situations. If you don't do it, I'm afraid it looks like you're in too much of a hurry to eat. It wouldn't, of course, if the practice weren't entrenched, but it is, so there you are. The only part that might be a little overstated is the bit about the knife -- it sort of sounds as though we lay it down delicately, which is not really accurate.

I can see that from the outside it looks as silly as, say, the European idea of leaving a token morsel of food on your plate at a restaurant looks to us. --Trovatore (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Europe? I've never heard of that except in an HSBC advert mentioning it as Chinese etiquette. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more original research: I'm right-handed and European, and I always eat with the fork in the right hand and the knife in the left. It just came more naturally to me that way. No other right-handed person I know does it. Because the standard place setting has the fork on the left and the knife on the right, I always have to do a quick swapover before I tuck in. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, meet someone else who does :-) 81.187.153.190 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should start a club? ;) --Candy-Panda (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! A really dumb question, maybe. But: In those cultures in which it is highly improper to eat with the left hand, is food always served chopped up in small pieces (and/or communally) so that one need not use a knife? And are cooks also expected to only use one hand, or is the rule only when dining? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite easy to eat most things only using a fork in my right hand and nothing else. Except duck. HS7 (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dagga

What are the laws governing marajuana in south africa? how many years in prison? what size fine? for possetion, dealing ect thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.34.51 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Legality of cannabis unfortunately doesn't presently contain a section on South Africa. However, this website for travellers who use cannabis suggests that you are likely to be fined, but not imprisoned for possession. It doesn't say how much the fine might be. It also mentions that the authorities deal more harshly with dealers. (No comment on the reliability of this possibly user-generated content.) There is an interesting article here which suggests that South Africa produces the largest amount on cannabis in the world, most consumed domestically. However, Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice, so if you're considering possessing or dealing dagga based on answers you receive here - please don't. --Kateshort forbob 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL not legal advise, was just curious as when I lived there, i and everyone i knew and met smoked it all the time, i repeat ALL THE TIME. and never had any problem finding it or anything so was just curious, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.34.51 (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so you quit-quit? --hydnjo talk 02:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, its just getting harder to find, but one does seem to grow out of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.34.51 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call them?

You know those tables that they have hooked up to beds in patients rooms were they place food on them. What are they called? Thank you for anyone who answer this. (I'm sorry if my description is a little bad.)71.142.214.138 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Overbed tables. --Sean 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. 71.142.214.138 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Tab question

|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|-----------12---x-12---x-12--|-x-12---x-12--x-----12---x-12-x-x-12---x-|
|-----------12---x-12---x-12--|-x-12---x-12--x-----12---x-12-x-x-12---x-|
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|-12s14-----------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|

How do I play the X's? Bellum et Pax (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mute the strings by just pulling your fingers off the 12th fret a little. (damping the strings) 139.142.1.140 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is this tab to? which song, and by whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.34.51 (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guitar tab and it's difficult to tell who it's by etc. with only a short excerpt. Why don't you ask User:Bellum et Pax on his/her talk page? :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 00:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Cigar |Bellum et Pax (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Often muted strings like that are used for their percussive effects. If you have amp effects with it (distortion or wah wah) such sounds can be very interesting (e.g. the beginning of Voodoo Chile is pretty much all muted strings, with a wah wah). --140.247.11.3 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9

what is the alt-code for this character —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.125.54 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The character appears to be a "9", which doesn't require any special codes. In any case instead of clarifying the question here, I suggest asking on the Computing Desk and explaining clearly what character you mean. --Anonymous, 20:07 UTC, February 13.

my nine key is broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.125.54 (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a Windows system, open the Character Map application (Start -> Programs -> Accessories -> System Tools). — Lomn 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On mine, it seems to be alt-57. Imagine how frustrating it would have been if it had been alt-59, though :) Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that 57 is represented in hexadecimal as 0x39. It is no coincidence that the second digit of the character address matches the character. Similarly, the letter "A" (both upper- and lower-case) is mapped to 0xn1 with the rest of the alphabet proceeding from there. — Lomn 22:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoHotKey Remapping Solution

Here's a solution (sorry, the previous edit was slightly wrong):

download and install autohotkey (35-60 seconds)
right-click desktop and select "new autohotkey script" give it a name such as "eight plus one" (10 seconds)
right-click ont he new script file and select "edit" (3 seconds)
Paste the following line into the end of the script (5 seconds): ^8::Send, 9
Save (1 second)
Double-click the new script. (2 seconds)

Done!

Now, whenever the script is running, pressing CTRL-8 will be like pressing 9. To type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ctrl-8 0

Have fun! 79.122.19.82 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. if you know of a single character you don't need, like `, you can just have a line

`::9

and pressing ` will be like pressing 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.19.82 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoHotkey is a great program, but if the physical key is broken (so not just the number 9 but also Shift-9 and Alt-9 and so on) then it might be a better idea to remap the keyboard so that a key you don't use (e.g. Scroll Lock) behaves like the 9 key. You can do that with KeyTweak. -- BenRG (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What motivates terrorists

Do terrorists hate us for our freedoms, for our religion, or because of political reasons like America's idiotic foreign policy in the middle east? I mean Islam makes the actual attacks happen because the terrorists think they're gaining something, but there's presumably some legitimate ill-will behind them.. what causes it? :D\=< (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's just something to do. get out of the house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.19.82 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily all of them have a particularly good reason. An alarming number of people will do exactly what they're told. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of terrorism is different in each instance. It could be political situations, it could be social-policy, it could be propaganda, it could be religion, it could be generational change. It is often that they don't 'hate' individuals they 'hate' groups. On a one-to-one basis yourself and a terrorist may find each other pleasant company (if it makes it easier to envisage, consider terrorism in Northern Ireland - terrorists formed part of 'normal' society too and will have interacted with their 'enemy' daily, perhaps even been friends with those in a group they despise). I think it was Stalin who said 'one death is a tragedy, one million is a statistic' - the terrorists aren't looking to kill specific individuals (apart from obvious political figureheads etc. for symbolic/tactical reasons) they are looking to kill an ideology, a theory, to bring about some change that they, ultimately, feel is positive to the world. It's difficult to comprehend because where does dissent end and terrorism start. Is it with breaking the law? Is it with breaking serious laws? The answer depends on your idea of how far dissent can go in society. Few believe terrorism is acceptable, but sometimes things are labelled terrorism that people would merely consider civil-disobedience. ny156uk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point about what is terrorism is succint. For example, nearly everything Imad Mugniyah was involved in is labelled 'terrorism' by various parties, as is for example the USS Cole bombing. However some of Mugniyah's targets were undoutedly military targets, often without putting civilians in direct danger (unlike the Pentagon in September 11th which involved a plane full of civilians). All of these involved guerilla tactics but does that automatically make them terrorist acts? Some people argue that only state actors are legitimate allowed to use force, anyone who is not deemed state and uses force is a terrorist. But then who determines what is a state? Of course, most of these actions, even when against military targest are to some extent meant to cause 'terror' but the same could be said about nearly every military attack. The US nuclear bombings of Japan in WW2 were obviously partially intended to cause 'terror', and wasn't the 'shock and awe' campaign of the Iraq war also meant to cause 'terror' (isn't shock and awe equivalent to terror?). The killing of Imad Mugniyah was via a bombing and I believe some of the Munich terrorists as well. And isn't the intention of these not just to get revenge on these people and to prevent them from contiunoing with their actions but also to spread fear (i.e. 'terror') among those who would follow them? Are these are not considered terrorist attacks, why? Is it only because of the people who were killed and the people doing the killings? If so, who decides who can legitimately be killed this way and who can be legitimately entilted to kill this way? Note that many of the actions of the ANC and Nelson Mandela were deemed terrorist acts and indeed they did plan (before Mandela was arrested) and in fact carry out attacks on civilian targets (although Mandela was in jail by the time). They felt, as do many other people involved in actions deemed terrorism that they had a legitimate cause and their only hope to achieve their cause was via what many would deem 'terrorism'. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is a tactic, rather than an ideology, so the question doesn't make sense. It's like asking what motivates people who use Apache helicopter gunships. --Sean 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (which is one of the very few good books on the subject that I have found) suicide terrorism is undertaken for specific social and political objectives NOT because of religious fanaticism. Religion is sometimes used as a recruiting tool but that’s about it. Suicide terrorism is also almost always undertaken as part of a highly organized and disciplined resistance movement. Non suicide terrorism is undertaken for a larger variety of reasons, reasons as simple as simply wanting attention, or as complex as psychological warfare. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "they" (I assume you mean Middle Eastern terrorists) don't hate America for its "freedoms"; that's what American politicians say in order to get themselves elected. From what I've been told by people who live in the Middle East, the insurgents there see America as the cruel, vicious bully who won't shut up talking about how wonderful and perfect and marvelous he is even as he beats up weaker kids, takes their things (and gives them to his girlfriend, Israel), and laughs over their broken bodies. They see America as a nation that cheats other countries for its own benefit (and Israel's) while claiming to be better than any other country. They see America as a country that bribes corrupt pro-American officials with billions of dollars ostensibly marked as "foreign aid", none of which actually goes to foreign aid (and America knows that, and does it deliberately).

Please understand that I personally strongly disagree with these beliefs; I'm only passing on what I've been told. --68.144.68.238 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maturity

I was wondering if anyone knows how long it takes a saving bond to mature in value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.194.122 (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savings Bonds can be taken out for a variety of number of years, there is no one set timescale they mature over. For instance Barclays do one that is 1, 2 or 3 years (http://www.personal.barclays.co.uk/BRC1/jsp/brccontrol?site=pfs&task=homefreegroup&value=12252) and National Savings & Investments do them at 1, 3 and 5 year terms (http://www.nsandi.com/products/frsb/index.jsp?section=apply). So the time it takes to mature in value is dependent on how long a term you choose for the product (well actually in reality it is dependent on the products available in the marketplace rather than your own choice since you choice is limited to the products available). ny156uk (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the questioner's IP geolocates to Racine, Wisconsin, I'll address this from the United States Savings Bond point of view. There are (and have been) many bond series issued over the last century, which have all had different terms and interest rates. The best resource I've found is the US Treasury website. They have an online calculator that can tell you the value of a bond based on the series, serial number and issue date. --LarryMac | Talk 14:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]