Miscellaneous desk
< July 19	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 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.

July 20

gravel screening pavement

I have recently heard of a type of pavement called "screening," which apparently is some kind of gravel mixture that hardens with water and appears similar to blacktop. Can you please tell me a little more about it, along with possible alternate names for it? I've been unable to find any information about this type of pavement using the word "screening." What is it made of? If it is as cheap and durable as I've been told, why isn't it used more often? Are there any environmental concerns? Any regulations regarding its use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.189.142 (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenings generally refer to a crushed rock which has passed through a screen with holes of a particular size. After levelling and watering it is rolled for roads and footpaths. Weeds will gradually take it over, and water erosion can take it apart too. Here in Aust. its nearly always a light orange colour and mostly quartz. Much less durable than bitumen (blacktop) but cheaper to maintain (with a grader and roller) if the traffic isn't too great. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zimdollars

Can anyone suggest how I might get hold of one of the new Zimbabwean $100 billion notes [[1]]here in Melbourne, Australia? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a travel agency, embassy, AAA, or bank. One in a big city would probably be better. It might take a little time before they're accessible in a foreign market. I'm also planning on looking for one. I read that they're only worth about $1 US. They also expire on December 31. Useight (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice; thanks very much, Useight. Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you get a hold of one let me know how you did it. I am on the lookout for one too. Plasticup ^T/C 15:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate, they may become worth more than a single US dollar. Useight (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golf

What is the shortest hole in all of golf? Not just championship courses, ANY course. 121.220.72.99 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mini-golf course nearby has one hole that is just 37 inches, but it is over a steep hillock. Does this help?86.211.109.40 (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

I play golf in my garden sometimes. Because I'm shit, I usually put the ball next to the hole, about 1 cm away. (Actually I don't play golf, but hopefully you get my point akin to 86's point) Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some possibilities. Rockpocket 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophia X Known and Earthan Philosopher

moved to User_talk:Earthan_Philosopher#Hello_and_welcome as it is not really a reference desk question.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Puzo Symbol

At the start of each chapter in Mario Puzo's books, there is a small symbol. Similar to a circle / flower. What would this symbol be called and where could I find the symbol on the internet. I searched, but not knowing what to call it really hampers my efforts. JelloTube (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it some kind of dingbat?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rosette, perhaps? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the King of Siam would say (maybe to Anna), "It is a Puzo-ment." Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Raccoons in the walls

We have a nest of raccoons that have found an entrance between the walls of our townhomes. Now that they are in there, they scamper between the walls and floors of our 6 units. We have set out traps next to the opening and have caught 4 so far. There are more...we can hear them. We loosely put chicken wire over the opening, so we can tell when they leave the wall. We're afraid to seal it up, since they would die in the walls and ceilings and decay. Is there a way we can smoke or fog them out...so, they leave and we can either catch them...or they can just find another place to live in the nearby woods? Once we stop hearing them move about, we will seal up the opening with a permanent solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrizzi (talk • contribs) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite what you asked about, but just the same: I think you might want to have some sort of a pest control specialist come in and take a look at the place -- I understand that raccoons tend to have multiple entrances to their dens, so the one you have found may not be the only way into the house. Also, depending on where you live, raccoons can also be carriers of all sorts of dangerous diseases, so, again, it might be a good idea to call someone who really knows how to deal with them. And finally, you will want to make sure that there's absolutely no way the raccoons can access to your trash once you have this cleared up; you don't want to give them any extra incentive to make themselves comfortable again. -- Captain Disdain (talk)

I think I'd stick with the traps. They have to come out sooner or later to eat, after all. Make it so they can't get out without triggering a trap. You could smoke them out by drilling a hole far from the entrance and pumping something objectionable in. However, beware that the gas will likely make it's way back into your house if you do this. StuRat (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, pumping some kind of gas into your own house in the hopes of getting some raccoons out strikes me as a pretty dumb thing to do. Let me put it this way: this sounds like a situation that has a pretty high probability of someone coming along afterwards and asking, "what the hell were they thinking?" You got a pest problem and you don't know exactly how to deal with it, call a pest control professional -- for a quick consultation, if nothing else. I'm betting those guys are insured, for starters; if they screw up your house, they'll take care of it. If you screw up your house by pumping some random crap in, or killing raccoons within the walls, or not understanding how the raccoons are getting so you don't manage to stop them in time before they turn all spaces inside the walls and in the attic into dens and crap all over the place, or someone gets bit by a rabid raccoon -- or whatever other scenario might conceivably take place -- I'm betting that you're the guy who ends up with the bill. Just saying. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional pest control people dealing with squirrels in the eaves of a house attached a "humane" trap to the hole the animals used to enter the dwelling, so that they were trapped one by one as the exited the place. More safe and effective than attempts to gas the vermin without gassing the humans. Edison (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion.

A non-practising roman catholic, I just watched "Goya's Ghosts" with my wife (a fictional tale of non-fictional inquisitorial Spain in the 17th century as blessed by the Vatican and the Spanish monarchy). I knew what to expect ie., torturing people until they confessed to ludicrous charges of crimes such as refusing to eat pork (when they simply didn't like it) giving the impression they were advocating the (then illegal) Jewish practice of not eating pork. My wife, a non-catholic was horrified, hardly surprisingly. Questions - has any Pope ever unconditionally apologised for the utter stupidity and cruelty of the catholic church's behaviour during those terrible times; and secondly, is there, or has there ever been, a peaceful, unitary-God-worshipping, non-vindictive and non-terrorising religion that my wife and I could join in pursuit of the fulfillment of all the graces, talents, and blessings that a true God has endowed mankind with, in tribute to His/Her/Its Glory? 92.8.200.239 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes the pope has apologised http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=spanish+inquisition+apology&meta=

2. Maybe the quakers?87.102.86.73 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your second question, the Unitarian Universalists? — QuantumEleven 11:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or just join the Universal Life Church and do your own thing. Algebraist 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Baha'i religion, which is relatively modern, very civilized, and a "unitary-God-worshipping, non-vindictive and non-terrorising religion". Omidinist (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really need an established religion? Ask yourself what you believe about God, life and the world and act on it -- you don't need to find an existing practice to tell you what to believe or do. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people want the social and cultural aspects which you can't get by yourself. 79.66.13.38 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is responsible for all the earth's problems?

The economy, world leaders, or just basic human selfishness? How come I got no problem being a caring, unselfish person? Sometimes I weep for all the starving children, for example. Something must be responsible. Is this how police states think? Are problems just part of life, (Some win, some lose, Earth still spins,...)?--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the causes of the earth's problem is that certain people choose to ignore clearly worded directions for no apparent reason. For example, the direction at the top which clearly says "Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox." Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have asked if anyone's ever published a paper on it Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a christian pov, it is the devil. --Cameron * 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be society.87.102.86.73 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the cause of all suffering is The Wheel. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An answer must take into account both structure and agency. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Earthanism, all these natural disasters is part of a prophecy of the apocolypse, and humans are paying for there sins, and sadly enough, soon 1/4 of the evil and sinful people on this earth will die as we are infested with disease-ridden cockroaches and other insects for a year . . . O_O. However, for the starving children, that is just an unfortunate circumstance created by the sinful rulers of the world (and all governmental leaders are sinners because they are disrespecting the deities, and not just one out of the few). They shall be rewarded in the afterlife.

Philosophia X Known(Philosophia X Known) 23:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC) --Earthan Philosopher

Frankly, Earthan, considering that "Earthanism" appears to be solely your own creation, I gotta tell you that you're not exactly selling it to us. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster just thought it would be funny. He was drunk at the time. Black Carrot (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that up - if you think it's bad now - wait till Cthulhu turns up.87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am. Sorry. APL (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single-cause. We could blame big-business and government for economic problems, we could blame consumerism for global warming, we could blame dictators and aggressive rulers for war, we could blame religion for promoting social exlclusion, we could blame lack of religion for loss of social cohesion, we could blame capitalist systems for income disparity, we could blame communism for rabid corruption. There is no single cause - every single one of the above ideas is contested, the cause of the world's problems is that maintaining happiness, stability and security for billions of people (with thousands of different morality, ethics and cultural values) is pretty much impossible. It's impressive we function as a society at all. As for weeping about poverty - pity is worthless, it might make you feel a little better/more caring but it's a waste of time. You are putting your idea of 'life' into their situation and assuming massive unhappiness/disillusion. There will be some, but do not underestimate the mind's ability to create happiness and having fun in almost all situations. The starving around the world is a massive tragedy we should try to solve, but we should not 'pity' their existence. AA Gill said the thing that scared him most when visiting poverty-stricken parts of Africa was not the struggle of their daily lives but that these people were laughing, joking, children were playing and having fun. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try help, it just means that we should be careful about projecting our thoughts about what life would be like - because it turns out we are pretty terrible at predicting how happy/unhappy we will be in given situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Serious answer) Nobody yet seems to have considered blaming the individual (I'n not suggesting you should - just that it's a possibility)

Is it possible that people in general are just bad?87.102.86.73 (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best answers I've seen is given by Chef on South Park, (from memory): God He's all hung up about something that happened thousands of years ago, and he wants to punish us for it. He gives us life and good things and then takes them away. It's like giving a lollipop to a baby and then taking it away and making it cry. If it didn't have it in the first place it would be fine, but giving the lollipop and then taking it back is really cruel and that's what makes God happy. ... Of course, what I'd say if I were being serious would be the classical philosophical one word answer: Ignorance.John Z (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with Cameron's "the devil" with a caveat - it's really sin. It can't be God, because the choices from a Christian POV would be to give mankind free will with the option of whether or not to sin, or to make mankind mindless robots incapable of choice. Christians believe He chose the former, and offered Himself as a Savior to save us from our sin. but, we still have many choices within the good that we are allowed to do.

Now, as a Christian, I must say, if you would rather be a mindless robot, that's up to you. I'm glad I have freedom of choice. And, I won't go any further, because this is getting too soapbox-ish already.209.244.187.155 (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once we find out who it is,surely that's notable enough to have their own page on WP? Lemon martini (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music question

Have you ever heard of a "Talk-in Box"? It was mentioned in a radio broadcast on KKJZ 88.1 out of Long Beach, CA yesterday morning on a program that deals with the early days of Jazz. I have searched for any mention of it on the internet and sites like yours and found nothing. It sounds to me to be like the old tabletop jukeboxes that were harwdwired to a main jukebox but I would like to learn more about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.33.32 (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may elude to a talkie, which was a slang term for a radio in the early days, or to a talkie which later became the slang for a radio soap opera both terms are from the early days of radio, before tv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]