Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 July 22

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 22

are virgins still around?

This may sound a bit strange but please bear with me:

I don't understand how people can say that virgins are rare nowadays. someone has got to be making love to all the ex-virgins. so my question is, what age has about 50% women virgins(oral counts too) and 50% not virgins. and can i(20 yrs) have sex with a woman that age in the u.s. and successfully defend myself in court if it should come to that by saying my religion requires a virgin and virgins over 18 are rare.--96.227.27.156 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that you should contact a lawyer for legal advice, but that strategy is so badly flawed I suspect a lawyer would laugh at you and throw you out of his office. StuRat (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If you have sex with a virgin, you'd just be contributing to the problem, wouldn't you? Think green: reduce, reuse, recycle, man! Seriously, get a non-virgin; they can show you, uh, stuff. Matt Deres (talk) 01:14,

Block quote

22 July 2008 (UTC)

Having sex is a problem? Atom (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a virgin and I'm 24 (male). 216.49.181.128 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Most girls lose their virginity by the age of 15. I believe this is illegal for sex in all US states. Your religion has nothing to do with it; I might follow a religion that requires me to starve and beat a goat over the course of two weeks then sacrifice it to Beelzebub but they would still indict me for animal cruelty. My advice is to either find a woman of the same religion as you and marry her, or get a life. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the average age in the U.S. for a woman losing virginity is 15. It is not illegal to have sex at age 15. The age of consent laws differ by state, but age 16 and age 18 are pretty common. That is the age a teen can decide to have sex with someone who is over age 18. Under that age they can, and do, have sex with other teens around their own age -- and that isn't illegal. Atom (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But, a serious answer to the question. If you are aged 20, you should seek out women your own age within a couple of years. If you engage in sex with someone age 15 in the U.S. you'll probably end up in jail, and no defense will likely prevent that. Many virgins aged 20 have their first experience with a woman that is older and wiser. Find a girlfriend that is 25. Atom (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, oral does not count -- regarding virginity. It does count toward avoiding STIs. Atom (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

15? I would estimate 18, but maybe we can find a source on this one. Plasticup ^T/C 12:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not as grim as you fear from a legal perspective (at least for much of north america): Ages of consent in North America TastyCakes (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And from the surveys I've seen it's doubtful that "most girls" lose their virginity before turning 15. If your religion forbids premarital sex, the chances are that most unmarried women who follow your religion are virgins. So try to connect with people of your religion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As do most religions. By that logic, shouldn't most unmarried people be virgins? --Cameron* 11:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And your logic presumes that most people are religious - and practicing, at that. Plasticup ^T/C 12:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that most practicing religious people avoid premarital sex. Much more than simply forbiding sex is needed to prevent it, being a rather powerful drive. That's why religions have resorted to actions like stoning people to death for violating the rules. (They typically only apply this punishment to the women, though, since the men make the laws.) StuRat (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is tautologically false. If religion requires abstinence and practicing religion requires adherence with the religion's requisites, then all practicing religious people will be abstinent. Unless you want to define "practicing religious people" as people who only practice parts of their religion at which point the distinction of a "practicing religious person" becomes meaningless. Plasticup ^T/C 16:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how useful that sort of analysis is, Plasticup (not that I don't appreciate its intellectual rigour). Taken to extremes, given that "the just man sins seven times a day - nay, seventy times seven", one could make a case that sometimes even the Pope is not a practising Catholic, merely because he happens to be a human being with human failings. Further, it would exclude all humans from the category of "practising <whatever religion>". -- JackofOz (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well put. For the purpose of this discussion I would define a "practicing <whatever religion>" member as one who attends services for that religion on a regular basis (say at least once a month, on average). StuRat (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I bet only about 20% of people who call themselves religious, or practicing, attend church more than twice a year in the U.S. Atom (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that boys also start out as virgins.90.9.80.154 (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)petitmichel

I'm a virgin and I'm a few days from being 26. I plan on staying that way till I'm married and I don't think I'm terribly unique. Maybe a little unique but I'm hardly the only one. -LambaJan (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. By being a little unique in this regard, one can avoid becoming slightly pregnant. -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Celibacy can also be overrated. Just ask the United Society of Believers. But hurry. OtherDave (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're "hardly the only one", you are not unique. Unique means "the only one". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Each to their own. I mean no disrespect, but you've been indoctrinated successfully (thanks to the Bush administration!) Virginity is overrated. Once you have sex you'll wonder why you waited. But, on the positive side, maybe you'll focus on finding a good relationship, instead of sex. Well, either that, or a lack of real sexual experience will make it difficult to find a woman to have a relationship with. Atom (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was using the informal usage meaning unusual. I don't have a problem with sex and I understand to one degree or another why everyone's nuts about it. I just think that if you put some boundaries on it it makes a lot of things easier. My wife'll know I had self control for my whole life so she'll be much less likely to worry about me messing around. I don't have to worry about STDs or having kids before I'm ready. I can go on but I don't think I have to. Just because I made a choice that is similar or the same as one that some zealots advocate doesn't mean that I don't have logical reasons or that I've been hoodwinked by Bushies. -LambaJan (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original question "are virgins still around?", yes, and most of them spend their time editing Wikipedia.

Vegetarian cooking: Looking for all purpose cookbook

I'd like to explore more vegetarian cooking for everyday meals. I was raised as an omnivore and have a lot of old habits to break. A couple of cookbooks already on my list to check out: "Diet For a Small Planet" and "Moosewood Cookbook". Oh, I'm lactose intolerant. I can eat cheese by taking a pill, but I don't want to depend on cheese as my main alternative. Your experiences would be appreciated.Quakerlady (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of vegetarian cookbooks around, but I can't recommend one as I am a vegetarian who just throws stuff together. In practice I'm practically vegan. Cheese and milk products are not particularly good foods anyway, so I suggest you investigate veganism. There are plenty of meat alternatives widely available as a source of protein, especially tofu, quorn, and a wide range of beans, and you can do all sorts of things with eggs.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My mother always used to swear by Leith's vegeterian cookbook, which certainly weighed a tonne. However, cheese is often a commonly used alternative in vegetarian cooking, so I'd recommend going to a bookshop, looking in their cookery section for a lactose intolerant vegetarian cookbook, and see what takes your fancy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs) 07:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Deborah Madison's Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone. Engaging, clear, tasty, and non-dogmatic (she explains where you can substitute if you don't use dairy products, for example). I bought it ten years ago to make dinner for my new vegan girlfriend. We're now married. (Deborah was not invited to the wedding, though.) OtherDave (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite a fan of The Indian Vegetarian. I'm an even bigger fan of getting recipes off the internet. -LambaJan (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not personal experience, as I'm not a vegetarian, but I've heard nothing but good things about Mark Bittman's "How to Cook Everything" (which is not vegetarian only), and recently noticed that he has a "How to Cook Everything Vegetarian", which I haven't used, but am inclined to believe is good because of the author. (I'd also second the suggestion of browsing at a bookstore.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, based on my (omnivorous) experience with "How to Cook Everything". -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Diet for a Small Planet isn't much of a cookbook, though it does have recipes. It (and the related Recipes for a Small Planet) presents a system of combining "incomplete" plant proteins(i.e. that have several but not all the eight "essential amino acids") from several sources so that they "complement" each other for boosted nutrition, particularly protein, in a vegetarian or vegan diet. While there's nothing wrong with this, the touted value of "complementary proteins" in the same dish or meal has been largely debunked. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other country other than the Philippines that eats "pagpag"?

I cannot find anything about "pagpag" in wikipedia. This is Recycled Garbage Food for the Poor in the Philippines. Is there anything similar in any of the countries? Visit the below links for reference: katcarneo.wordpress.com/2008/07/09/eating-pagpag/ showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/entertainment/entertainment/view_article.php?article_id=79811 youtube.com/watch?v=Ri5eh_oflok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.125.114 (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dumpster diving, but I don't think that food is recooked - or sold. Rmhermen (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I used to live in the Philippines. I wasn't familiar with the term "pagpag", it seemed to me that everyone ate rice (with some type of "ulam" on it), for every meal. Useight (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

combat photographers

can you become a combat photographer in the british army? if so what requirements do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.1.159 (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would just guess - yes, you can. And beyond knowing how to use a camera, one of the requirements would be that you took the initiative to look it all up yourself. I'm not sure the Army looks for people who just read it on Wikipedia. But please do come back and be an editor once you've made the ranks! Franamax (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We're presuming of course you're a British citizen. It can be rather hard to join an army if your not a citizen of the country the army is intended to represent Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Err, actually that's not the case. It's fairly easy for a foreigner (well, Commonwealth and Irish citizens at least) to join the British Army. I know this article's from The Sun, but at the end of last year about 10% of the British Army's strength were foreigners - 3,000 Gurkhas, 2,000 Fijians, 840 South Africans, 820 Jamaicans, 820 Ghanaians, 550 Zimbabweans, 260 St Vincentans, 220 St Lucians, 150 Malawians, 140 Gambians, 130 Kenyans. The are also 570 foreigners in the Royal Navy and 50 in the RAF. Only this last week there have been reports of the Army planning another recruiting drive in Jamaica. Other people have to have lived in the UK for 5 years and got a UK passport, but this article says quite a few Poles have expressed interest too. -- Arwel (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to www.army.mod.uk.90.9.80.154 (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)DT

Why do we help other people?

You never know what these people are up to. Maybe you are helping a child rapist or war criminal. Anyway, why do we help unknown people? 83.40.13.85 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitively won't help a child rapist or war criminal to rape a child or as the case may be execute and torture civilians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 11:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :All sorts of reasons, amongst which Enlightened self-interest. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring, for the moment, the inanity of your question, I would like to point out that you are far more likely to be helping a nice honest fellow than you are to be helping a rapist or a war criminal. Plasticup ^T/C 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but you're more likely helping yet another SOB than a nice honest fellow. I think there are probably only marginally more of them around than there are war criminals. ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Our article on altruism (helping other people) provides some information on why. Often it boils down to it being taught as the right thing to do. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We even help people who think they're better than other people. I suppose if they got more help along they way they wouldn'tve turned out like that. -LambaJan (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the idea of karma has something to do with it; perhaps we figure that if we do something nice for someone, someone might do something nice for us. Useight (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this logic, we shouldn't help you.hotclaws 20:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We help people to support them. For example, when I have been in a bad mood and someone helps me with something, I feel better and perhaps will not act as arrogant and rude as I would have. An extreme case of this is the Virginia Tech Massacre. Seung-Hui Cho attacked students at the college, killing 32 and injuring many others. The article notes that he was teased in middle school and high school. Perhaps, if others had reached out to him, the act at Virginia Tech would not have happened and his anger and temperament would not have developed so extensively. Just my thoughts. The Reader who Writes (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also interesting is the idea of the group lowering barriers to ensure its survival and continuation. Helping is positive in itself but weirds out if used detrimentally or to cause harm. A neat symbol tangling these intentions is the latest example of Radovan Karadžić who would have gone through the whole range of being helped to harm, "helping" to heal, helping himself to a polar opposite disguise and others helping to catch him. Meanwhile he is regarded as a traitor and criminal by at least one group and a hero by another. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do so many countries trade Sing and HK dollars?

I'm traveling through Africa. I noticed the exchange boards offer an unusual variety of currencies. After reading hard currency I see why I always see the Australian dollar, Swedish kroner, etc. But why do so many central banks here offer rates for HK and Sing dollars?

Lotsofissues 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Singapore and Hong Kong are major trading cities. People and businesses in Africa are equally or more likely to buy something from a Singapore or HK trader compared to an Aus or Swede. Franamax (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is that this has to do with the large and growing Chinese trade with Africa. China's currency is not freely convertible, so some of this trade may be handled by companies in Hong Kong or Singapore, or Chinese firms may have easier access to currencies from those countries than to other convertible currencies. (Hong Kong is of course Chinese, and Singapore has a large ethnic Chinese population and close trade ties to China.) Marco polo (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the question should be: why do so many countries trade Swedish kroners? TresÁrboles (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

staples

what is the correct name for a 'row' of staples?86.134.245.3 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)mike

I am pretty sure it's "stick", but my search results are being polluted by the large US office supply chain store. --LarryMac | Talk 14:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My box of staples says it has 210 staples per strip. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno but the collective noun for a lot of staples is a 'clench' or 'cinch' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.157.37 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth records

Is there a website for free access to Indiana birth records from the 1970s? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's unlikely, as it would surely violate privacy laws. Corvus cornix_talk 16:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of a census record? I don't know if that's public information or not. Useight (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Census records are also under privacy laws and are not accessible for 72 years. Rmhermen (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I need it for the article on Indiana Gregg. I've found out the birth date in the mean time, but I can't find a reliable source to cite it, so I was hoping to take the shortcut. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if state census records are available, but US census records after 1930 are not yet available. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

States do not take censuses anymore. I don't see any listed after 1925 1945.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're trying too hard. If the birthdate is not widely available in reliable sources, then it's best to leave it out per WP:BLP. Looking for birth records is definitely not the way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Snow Shoes

i'm going to new york for my college this fall, i would like to know if there is any need for me buying snow shoes, for use during the winters. is it really needed for the walk on campus n stuff???n would they b available cheaper in the states, than me trying to find snow shoes in a place where it has neva snow- India! temme wat do you recommend!...as snow shoes really needed..n if yes..should i buy em here in India or shuld i buy em in USA?cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.224.65 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think someone may have been winding you up. The New York article states that the city receives "about 25 to 35 inches (63.5 to 88.9 cm) of snow every winter season, but often without accumulation because temperatures are not low enough." I think it is safe to say that you do not need snow shoes at all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Though we should clarify -- do you mean New York City or New York state? If the state, then where? Snowfall is potentially much higher in other areas. As for "snow shoes" -- you are quite unlikely to need snowshoes, though some form of snow-appropriate boots may well be useful. In general, I would think you're fine to wait until you're stateside if you're uncertain of what's needed. — Lomn 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are significant amounts of snow on the ground, you can expect the city and school to clear the roads and walkways. Obviously they don't have the manpower to do this instantly, but they should do it fast enough that you should never be obliged to walk through more than about two inches(5cm) of snow, and even that would be rare.

You may want some warm boots, walking to class on a snowy day with sneakers on can sometimes be uncomfortable, but If I were you I'd wait until you got to the states. The fall semester probably starts in September. There will not be snow until November at the earliest. Hope this helps.APL (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I grew up near New York City and have lived most of my life in the Northeastern United States. I don't know what snow shoes are. There is such a thing as snowshoes, which you need only if you will be walking through deep snow in an open or wooded area away from roads. You would not need them to get around a college campus. On the other hand, you might want some waterproof boots or walking shoes, preferably ones that extend above your ankle. Taghsimon is not correct in stating that snow does not accumulate in New York City. It certainly does. What is worse, several inches of snow may fall and then be followed by a near-freezing rainfall. The result is several inches of snow soaked like a sponge with freezing water. In this kind of situation, it is very helpful to have some waterproof boots. You can find fairly inexpensive rubber ones in the United States. If you are going to be in some other part of New York State, such as Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, or Ithaca, you can expect very heavy snowfall. You could easily see 6 inches (15 cm) or more of snow per week from December through March, with lighter amounts beginning in late October, and it can accumulate to depths of more than 3 feet (1 meter). In these places, you may want not just waterproof boots, but insulated waterproof boots, which are more expensive than plain rubber boots. Again, you can shop for these once you arrive, since snow will not fall until October. Marco polo (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagishsimon didn't state anything. He provided a quote from the New York City article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

... and all that states is that snow 'often' fails to accumulate. Algebraist 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of ma friends are going to Purdue n Penn State...so also tell me what will the condition of snow b there. will it too muc or handleable, just like NY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.224.65 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I grew up not very far from Purdue. The middle of Indiana does get snow but not as much as New York City probably gets. At most, they can look forward to a few inches at a time, maybe as much as a foot though that would be rare. Again, the campus and surrounding towns will be kept clear by snowplows. As far as Penn State goes, I wouldn't expect it to get much worse than either New York or Purdue. Though, I've only ever been to Pennsylvania once during the winter. Dismas|^(talk) 04:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

crossing the US/Mexico border?

I have a question. I am trying to cross the US/Mexico border to get from Downtown San Diego to Tijuana. However, I don't have a passport. I've heard that you need a passport to cross the border, and that you don't need a passport to cross the border. I have a California drivers liscense, showing who I am. I also heard you don't need a passport until June 2009. Can anyone confirm this?76.194.67.39 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Call an embassy. Useight (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

From the US Department of State - (n.b. WHTI="Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative") - "ALL PERSONS traveling by air outside of the United States are required to present a passport or other valid travel document to enter or re-enter the United States . . . On June 1, 2009, the U.S. government will implement the full requirements of the land and sea phase of WHTI. The proposed rules require most U.S. citizens entering the United States at sea or land ports of entry to have a passport, passport card, or WHTI-compliant document." More information at that link, and also at the DHS site linked therefrom. --LarryMac | Talk 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Anschluss

Anschluss voting ballot.

The article Anschluss shows this voting ballot. Notice it says Wiedervereinigung, meaning recombination. Am I just too ignorant of history, or when was Austria originally part of Germany, before the Nazis came to power? Or is it just Nazi propaganda? JIP | Talk 18:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The history subsection of our Austria article may be of interest. To summarize, it's not really a full lie, but neither is it fully true. Austria has close ties to pre-modern (pre-1871) Germany particularly. While Austria had not ever been part of modern Germany, the association was significant enough that the victors of WW1 forbade the two countries to merge. As such, there was enough of a cultural, if not strictly political, history to make "recombination" a defensible claim. — Lomn 18:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Austria as of 1938 and most of the area that became Germany in 1871 had previously been part of the German Confederation and of the Holy Roman Empire. So Austria had not been part of the nation-state of Germany as it existed when founded, but Austria had been part of the vaguely defined cultural region of Germany as it had been conceived before the proposal of a Kleindeutsche Lösung in the mid-1800s. Even in the English language, Austria would have been considered part of the vaguely defined region (but not yet nation-state) of "Germany" prior to the mid-1800s. Marco polo (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You often hear WWII-era Germany referred to as the Third Reich ("Reich" meaning "Empire"). As described in the articles Reich and German Reich, in the Nazis' messed-up psychology the "First Reich" was the Holy Roman Empire and the "Second Reich" was Bismark's German Empire. The Holy Roman Empire contained portions of Austria. Hence, in the minds of the Nazis, it would be a "re"unification of the empire to include Austria. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cash redemption value" for coupons

I've noticed that many coupons say that they have a cash redemption value of "1/20th or 1 cent" or something like that. Clearly the idea is to make the redemption value so small that it's essentially worthless, but that begs the question: why have a redemption value at all? Is there a legal reason?

Thanks! — Sam 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This site says: Coupon experts say it applies to an old trading stamp promotion law that's still on the books in Indiana, Utah and Washington. In those states, the consumer is not required to purchase the coupon item and may send in 100 coupons for about 50 cents in postage and get back a penny. Some coupons have a higher value, 1/20th of a cent. Manufacturers set their own cash value. Dismas|^(talk) 20:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I always understood it to be something to do with contract law. In order for there to be a valid legal contract (under English law, at least), three elements need to be present: offer, acceptance and consideration. The 0.00001c or whatever represents the consideration given by the customer to the vendor. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember in one of the Imponderables books reading that there is, or used to be, a law in Kansas that said any coupon without a stated cash value could be redeemed for the coupon's value in cash. In other words, a "$1 off" coupon would have a cash value of $1 unless it had another cash value on it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — Sam 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.152.238 (talk)

Every coupon I've ever seen (that I can recall) says "This coupon has no cash value." Maybe this is a Canadian thing but I've never seen a coupon with any cash value, not even 0.0001 cents. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

pirates

Is it a custom amoung pirates to give a peace of paper with a black circle on it to sygnigfie that they were going to kill whomever they gave it too? 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

According to our article, it looks like the black spot is fictional and was invented by Robert Louis Stevenson. So no, not in real life. --Masamage ♫ 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

undertone and overtone

What is the difference between undertone and overtone? The undertone article states it's "An underlying or implied tendency or meaning", but the overtone article is about "frequency of a system". Am I correct in assuming that overtone is the opposite of undertone, ie a heavily implied or declared meaning? Poser horizontalement (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that they were more-or-less synonyms, and it appears that the (concise) OED agrees: overtone (2) a subtle or subsidiary quality, implication, or connotation. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Better to place this Q on the language desk for fuller replies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.157.37 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Coming from a musical background I originally thought you were talking about the musical terms. This is further confused because you referenced the language arts definition for undertone and then referenced the musical article for overtone. In music the overtone series is 1/2, then 1/3, 1/4 and so-on of the fundamental and an undertone series is what would exist if there was a mirror image of that (but there isn't, physically). In literature an undertone is something that is implied but not outright said. Such as when a mother-in-law responds her daughter-in-law's 'Hi, it's nice to see you' by saying 'Hi, You look thin.' The undertone being the implication that there really isn't anything nice to say about her except that she isn't fat. An overtone can often be construed as the same thing and often times the terms are interchangeable. To me the difference has to do with the heart of the message. You often hear stiff people complaining about 'sexual overtones' in the media. In music a lot of those songs are really getting at something else, like friendship or love, but since sex sells that gets thrown in there. So you could say that the girl with a pearl earring has an undercurrent of sexuality because of the sexual tension, but you wouldn't say it has sexual overtones. Likewise you would say that SexyBack has sexual overtones but he's really talking about being a gentleman, so in this case undertone doesn't work. That's how I see it, anyway. -LambaJan (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine and shaky hands

Is it true that drinking coffee or consuming caffeine will make one's hands shake and render them unstable? If so, do surgeons, or other professions that require manual dexterity, drink coffee before an operation in the morning? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Our article indicates that excessive caffeine consumption can cause tremors. This shouldn't happen with moderate consumption, I believe. Algebraist 23:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Tremor article describes caffeine as a "trigger" for tremors, that is that it may bring them on if you already, for whatever reason, are prone to them. So a person with Benign Essential Tremor, for example, may experience tremors from high caffeine levels. I can tell you from experience that surgeons do not abstain from coffee....or much else. Fribbler (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

People have different levels of tolerance to various substances, and their bodies respond differently to them. A (little more exaggerated) example of this is that if two people of the same size drink the same amount of alcohol, their level of intoxication is going to be pretty much the same, but they can still respond to it differently: some people are more liable to slur than others, for example. The same goes for caffeine: some people can't drink a cup of coffee in the evening or they can't get to sleep; I personally have almost never had any trouble falling asleep, no matter how much of it I drink. Shaky hands are most likely going to fall in the same category; I'd bet most surgeons know their bodies well enough to know whether drinking a cup of coffee before operating is going to make their hands shaky. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)