Miscellaneous desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

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.

July 15

accents

so, if american girls find french, english, and pretty much any accent attractive in a guy, do girls in other countries find american accents sexy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.121.45 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we're going with stereotypes with a bit of truth to them, then how could they; Americans are (mostly) monolingual.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other English speaking countries they could. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a subtle speech impediment. This was that I sometimes had difficulty pronouncing the “r” consonant correctly (for middle American English). Most people thought I had and English (or maybe Dutch) accent. While some girls were actually attracted to me because of this single fact, the vast majority were neutral in regards to my “accent.” --S.dedalus (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People tend to find foreign accents attractive because they are 'exotic' or they have an association with something (e.g. French has long been considered an attractive accent in films). I suspect that there will be many girls from other nations that find the American accent attractive, perhaps those that aspire to be in America/admire America would be the most likely? Personally I think most accents when 'softened' can be attractive, but when they are broad they tend to be less so. E.g. a soft geordie accent is nice, but a broad one can be rather hard to understand and isn't as appealing. 194.221.133.211 (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all my travels I have never met anyone who liked an American accent, at least on the first date. This is unfortunate because despite my eclectic origins I have somehow developed a blended American accent. My guess is that the accent is so ubiquitous that it is no longer exotic. That, and America (rightly or wrongly) is either mocked or reviled by almost every country on Earth. Plasticup ^T/C 18:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being a little hard on your accent. I think a lot of British girls like American accents, but perhaps more because they've been associated with projecting confidence and other stereotypes about the "typical American persona" than how they literally sound. TastyCakes (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle likes American Boys... --Candy-Panda (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently spent a year in Brazil. I speak fluent portuguese but still retain a very "gringo" accent, and I met more than a few girls who liked the way I talked. Whether it was the accent itself that caused the appeal or the fact that the accent identified me as a foreigner is certainly open to debate. --Shaggorama (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockport

Is Rockport generally considered as an upscale brand in North America? 99.240.177.206 (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Endless Dan 12:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette Smoking

I'm a 17 year-old girl. I smoked a cigarette from my dad's packet a few months back, and got addicted to smoking. Unfortunately, dad gave up smoking just after that, so I haven't had any opportunities to smoke any more cigarettes after that. I got so addicted that I made my own "cigarette" my rolling up a bit of cotton in a piece of newspaper, and lighting a fire to make it just smoulder. It's not much, and it gives out a lot of smoke, but any kind of smoke does for me. My question is: Is this kind of smoking even more harmful than cigarette smoking, as it gives out more smoke and ash?? 117.194.224.177 (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't give medical advice here, but this cannot be good for you. Please see your doctor or go to your local stop-smoking service. Don't be afraid/embarrassed to explain it to them. Good luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not get addicted to smoking from 1 cigarette. As Itsmejudith says you should seek medical advice/help regarding your home-made cigarettes, though seeing as the content has no nicotine there's no reason to suggset these 'cigarettes' would ever produce the same effect you (apparently) crave. I suspect you are being silly because neither the starting of your addiction, nor your attempts to satisfy your craving are realistic in terms of nicotine addiction. More likely the thing you crave is attention... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.211 (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck no! Nicotine is not what I crave. What I like is the smoke. And as for being addicted to smoking from 1 cigarette, what else will you call the feeling that I have?? I always think about the next time I'll see smoke belching out of my nostrils... 117.194.224.190 (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The feeling may be of 'withdrawl' or it could be infatuation with the idea/memory of smoking, but it is certainly not an addiction. 194.221.133.211 (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what you think of as an addiction is actually a fetish. It's extremely unlikely (well, just about impossible, really) that you would become addicted from a single cigarette, but if it pushes some kind of a psychosexual button for you, you'd probably notice that right away, the nature of a fetish being what what it is. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a hint from your father and stop before you start. Why don't you talk to him about why he quit smoking and how hard it was to do? Do yourself, your lungs, your teeth, your face, your pocketbook a favor and don't go down that path. I see women every day in my town who look a decade older than they really are because they spent their whole youth smoking. It's ugly stuff and there's no takebacks. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had something to say, but 98.217 just nailed it. Don't waste your time, health, money, and beauty on something so disgusting. Plasticup ^T/C 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Power Outages

where can I find statistics on power outages in regions of the UK ? Thanks. 212.137.53.1 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something in the National Grid's current seven year report here. Fribbler (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commi

While reading the article tibetan buddism I came across a line that read, to paraphrase, some of the larger monastaries were rebuild after the fall of communism in china. OK? This made me think, I always though that communism was still active in china, but just had some alterations made to join in with global capitalism. So I was very suprised to find that we have no article on communism in china nor chinese communismthis one does link but is not what one expects to find. fall of communism in china etc etc etc any help would be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the line about Mongolia? The communist government there fell in 1990. Algebraist 11:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed they were one and the same, controlled from the centre. Great, thanks, is there an article on that specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Mongolia was an independent state, aligned with the Soviet Union and opposed to China. I already linked the relevant articles. Algebraist 11:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, though, that Inner Mongolia, is actually outside of Mongolia the country, and is really part of China. (There's a good explanation for the terminology at Outer Mongolia, which, confusingly, is almost-but-not-quite the same as the current country of Mongolia.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maroon 5 Cover?

Hello, does anyone know the acoustic version of "makes me wonder" by maroon 5? Is it a cover? If not, is it released somewhere? TastyCakes (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Makes Me Wonder article has some information, but nothing about the acoustic version. Regardless, it is an original song by Maroon 5. Cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The results from this Google search lead me to believe it's Maroon 5 performing their own song. I can't find a CD version, perhaps it's available for download. --LarryMac | Talk 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I think they may have only released it on radio, as shown here. TastyCakes (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legalese in ALL CAPS

Why is it that sections of license agreements dealing with warranties are often written in ALL CAPS (as in, for example, the BSD License)? In particular, why is it that the implied warranties of MERCHANTABILITY and FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE are often written like that? Is it required by law or just a tradition? « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 19:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if it changes anything, I'm in the US. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 19:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall there being some court case that made it clear that such warranties and etc. had to be written in a way that emphasized how important they were, that drew attention to them. Of course, like all things like this, the unintended consequence is that we all just ignore such bits as being pure legalese and being almost meaningless. This page for example discusses a few such cases in which the importance of having said warranties "stand out" was ruled upon. I believe the official terminology is that implied warranties must be "conspicuous" which means all capitals, different fonts, etc. It's in the Uniform Commercial Code that it must be conspicuous, and of course it is up the courts to figure out what "conspicuous" means, and all caps is one easy way to get that. --140.247.248.35 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin uppercase is much harder to read (only one height, no descender, etc), so the warranties are read more slowly. There are much better ways of emphasizing text. MTM (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Font

How can you type in, let's say, Boldface textualis, or "Gothic" style font? Earthan Philosopher (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Generally, when writing on computers, you simply choose a suitable font from the program you're typing in -- provided that such a font is installed on the computer... but this seems so obvious that I wonder if you're asking about something else entirely. Could you be a little more specific? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they are asking how to change the font in Wikipedia ? StuRat (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so the answer seems to be yes/maybe - if you must.. eg :

<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="3">My Text is written here</font>

gives

My Text is written here

I don't know where you can find a list of available fonts.87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these will work http://www.angelfire.com/fl5/html-tutorial/fontlist.htm

My Text is written here

etc.. 87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's more at Font family (HTML) - what it displays may depend on your browser...87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I dont have "algerian" font so that line looks identical to the times new roman line. — Shinhan < talk > 13:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of death Vs 9/11 deaths graph, can you find it?

Hey all, interesting request; A while back (i expect submitted to digg, but diggs search is shite so i can't find it) someone released a bar graph showing the yearly deaths in the US (due to heart disease, cancer etc) vs deaths due to 9/11 - with the main result being it wasn't many at all. Does anyone know where i can find this graph as i'd very much like to use it in future. Many thanks -Benbread (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know any such graph off hand, but all in all, including everyone in the two towers, the planes and on the ground, there were 2,974 victims (excluding the hijackers). That's a lot of people, obviously, but compared to the annual death toll in the United States, it's a drop in the bucket. A very quick Google search turned up these statistics from 2005, which indicate that over one million people die every year from other causes. (I'm not sure how dependable the site's statistics are, but for a country with a population of over 300 million people, I would really expect nothing less.) Of course, the 9/11 deaths are significant for all sorts of other reasons, the least of which -- from a statistical point of view -- isn't that so many people died during a very short period of time as a result of a criminal act... but if you ignore the reasons for and the implications of those deaths, the number doesn't really stand out when compared directly to the number of annual deaths in America. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the above, but also adding that to compare deaths from disease and natural causes with murders is not exactly commensurate. You could take other "important deaths"—lynchings of Blacks in the 1960s, deaths of civilians in Iraq, total US dead in Vietnam—and they will always pale in comparison to illness. That doesn't make them unimportant. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, even if you take violent deaths for comparison, 9/11 wasn't much more than a blip—statistically speaking. In 2001, there were more than 16,000 reported murders and non-negligent homicides—not counting the September 11 deaths[1]. (Note also that even if you did count the 9/11 deaths, the U.S. had more murders and non-negligent homicides every year from 1987 to 1996 than occurred in 2001.)

There were roughly 30,000 deaths by firearms in the United States in 2004[2]. About 45,000 people were killed in U.S. motor vehicle accidents in 2003[3], so you're still safer flying than driving.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say whether the deaths were statistically significant, you shouldn't compare the 2,974 victims to the average number of deaths from other causes, but to the statistical fluctuations in deaths from those other causes. For example, on an average day, the number of deaths from all causes in the U.S. is on the order of (300,000,000/(75*365)) (population/number of days in a lifetime, approximately) = 11,000. Those deaths can be expected to approximately obey Poisson statistics, because most deaths are uncorrelated. There are exceptions (motor vehicle accidents, structure fires, etc.) but the approximation should be good. Thus the standard deviation in number of deaths per day in the U.S. from all causes is approximately sqrt(11,000) = 105. Therefore, the 2,974 deaths on one day represented a 28-sigma deviation from the average, which is exceptionally significant. You can do the same thing with your annual totals of deaths from violence and accidents, and reach the same conclusion, that the 9/11 deaths were highly significant on an annual basis. On the other hand, if you compare the 9/11 death totals to the total annual U.S. deaths (~4,000,000/year; sqrt(4,000,000) = 2,000) it's only a 1.5-sigma event (i.e. of low statistical significance, similar to the expected year-to-year fluctuations in death totals). -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the vast majority of the victims of 9/11 were office-based employees I would expect that the average-age of a 9/11 victim is much lower than the average age of dieing in that year. It would be more fair to compare the death-rate of that average age against the 9/11 toll because of the 100s of thousands dieing every year a large majority will be dieing at ages far above the average of 9/11 victims. It's always tough to compare the statistics of a tragedy to the more routine/daily death-count because of the nature of their deaths - but I think if people are to they should be a little more 'fair' in the way they do. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that either one of you or I mistunderstands Coneslayer or I misunderstand you. S/He is saying that the number of people to die on an average day in the US is a Poisson variable with a mean of 11000 and a standard deviation of sqrt(11000). I don't think there was an implication that the average age at death in 2001 was the same as the average age of someone in the WTC on that day. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

194's text preceded mine, and was not a response to my discussion of statistics. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies all round. I should add "or I am a blind moron" to my first sentence. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know how many people die each year from tea-cosy related incidents. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]