Miscellaneous desk
< March 27	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 29 >

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.

March 28

Drinking blood to survive

Purely hypothetical- suppose if one is stranded on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean with no water. They are dehydrating and manage to catch a shark. Will the shark's blood, or the blood of any animal, provide hydration and keep one alive? Acceptable (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About half of human blood is water (It's 55% plasma, which is 92% water), so yes, blood would provide hydration. It contains a lot of other stuff, too, though, so it might also make you sick pretty fast. And I'm not sure to what degree all animal blood is similar. --Masamage ♫ 00:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That 92% figure is inviting, but bears scrutiny. By comparison, seawater is 96.5% water, but it does dehydrates a person, in the longer term, if ingested. So for my money Acceptable's question stands. Me, I'd doubt that you'd get much or any hydration from blood. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fellow by the name of Gregory J. Davenport has a book called Wilderness Survival in which he says not to drink blood for hydration, and I agree with his reasons. He explains here that it will leave you thirstier than before. I would say you shouldn't have an ice cream cone, either, then. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think your only hope for hydration is that it would somehow rain.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just eat the shark? Water doesn't have to be in its free, liquid, state to be of use to you. Personally, I'd rather not eat raw shark, but if I was at the point where I was considering drinking fish blood, I might feel differently. Matt Deres (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a case some years ago of a shipwrecked family who survived by drinking turtle blood. It might be this, but that excerpt relates to eating the turte, not drinking its blood. However this seems to confirm its practicability. --ColinFine (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't eat the shark. Protein requires a large amount of water to digest. If you don't provide water along with the protein at the time you eat it, then your body will pull the necessary amount of water from your body, dehydrating you even further. In other words, if you have protein but no water, then you should pass on the food. You'll die from dehydration faster than from hunger. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesss... except that the meat we eat is somewhat dehydrated from cooking. Raw meat will still have the blood in it as well as the usual intercellular (and intra-) cellular fluids. All the steam you see escaping when you grill a steak and all the fluid left over in the pan after you've baked a fish would still be present if you ate it raw. Matt Deres (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devon stream name

What is the name of the stream that passes under road B3227 at the village of Langridgeford, Devon, England? Please. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be the River Torridge? [1] Think outside the box 13:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a much smaller stream about 9km to the east of that. I can't find a map on the Web that names it, and I can't tell whether the ordnance maps name it by looking at the samples at their site. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The River Taw is east of the River Torridge. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We're getting warmer. The minor rivulet I want is between the two and seems to empty into Langham Lake, which isn't much of a lake the way I see it. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could contact any of the photographers here by email and ask them. --David from Downunder (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm going to do just that. The first picture on that page shows the very spot. I'll report back. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you... GFE!!! --David from Downunder (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Har. (I found that site in my searching, but somehow I failed to see that particular page. I didn't say anything because I wanted you to feel good about being such a big help, but now you've ruined it.) --Milkbreath (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Har. OK, you saved up for a copy of Google - now you need to learn how to use it properly. (I wouldn't have said that except now that I don't feel good, I feel the need to drag you down with me.) --David from Downunder (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to know this now! Its going to annoy me until I find out. I've looked at a few detailed maps and none of them name it - and some don't even show it. Think outside the box 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at tons of maps and still can't find the name for the water flow under my house. I must fix the downpipe instead of editing Wikipedia. --David from Downunder (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it doesn't have a name then. Rivers have names but many streams don't. There is a stream that runs through my suburb which is little more than a mile long before it meets the River Rea, and there's no name for it on the 1:2500 map.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that statement (many streams don't have names). Where I live even farm drainage ditches all have names - maybe used only be the local water board but named none-the-less. You probably just haven't looked hard enough to find it yet. Rmhermen (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of those suspended-belief wheelchairs?

They look like science fiction and sort of hover silently. No wheels per se. Anyone know what I mean? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are called Hoverchairs. I believe, but I am not sure. I thought that Professor X from X men had one, but then again I might be wrong on that. I hope I helped you out a little.Cardinal Raven (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

In Star Trek, even when they appear without wheels, they are still called wheelchairs. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean Segway PT or iBOT which have wheels?87.102.16.238 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Mecanum wheels, then? Still, they're deserving of a mention. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- the anon contributor found the nail in the dark and hit it on the head. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telephones in France

I read that most French households did not have telephones until the 1970s and that telephone service in France was notoriously poor until then.

Why was France so far behind the rest of the Western world in telephony? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this "Until the 1970s the telephone service was notoriously bad: in 1970, France had fewer lines per capita than Greece and only one fifth as many as Sweden. The reason appears to be that "the French government refused to invest a penny [in the telephone system]" in 1879 when the Post Office and Telegraph Minister, Albert Cochery, decided to equip the biggest French towns with a telephone service. [2] Think outside the box 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the BPO industry exploitive ?

I am trying to gather data , on the health of BPO workers in India and Philippines . Here most workers stay awake during the night to answer questions for US based customers, (this is due to the 12 hr time diffrence). This is bound to effect the health of the worker. I am unable to find concrete data,could someone help me pls :) 59.180.144.161 (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after looking up what "BPO" is, I then checked the article for Night shift. That lead me to Graveyard shift which states that the World Health Organization feels that working that shift increases your chances of getting cancer. You may also want to search the net for references of lowered vitamin D due to lesser exposure to sunlight. Dismas|^(talk) 07:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know some call center agents here in the Philippines. I think the worst problem that they face is the shifting schedule. Sometimes you are stationed during the night, sometimes during the day. I think this wreak havoc on their body clock. However they mostly gripe about rude callers though. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see [3], there are some facts here. I know this isn't raw data but it will provide useful starting data for your research. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK folks, please explain this to an American

In the United States, public radio (which is actually just partially subsidized by the government) exists to broadcast the kind of enlightening, quality stuff that commercial broadcasters might never get to, like public-affairs roundtables and classical music.

But BBC Radio apparently broadcasts all kinds of stuff that you would think could be handled by commercial broadcasters. According to our article, BBC Radio 1 plays pop music, BBC Radio 2 plays adult contemporary and music of your life, and BBC Radio 5 broadcasts sports and talk. In America, every major city has at least one, and often several, commercial pop, adult contemporary and sports/talk station.

I'm somewhat familiar with the history of British broadcasting, how the government once feared that commercial broadcasting would degrade the quality of the airwaves. But having been to Britain in recent years, I know commercial broadcasting is now universally accepted. So if the private sector can provide popular-music and sports/talk broadcasting at no cost to the taxpayer or license-buyer, why doesn't the British government sell the commercially viable radio stations and put the money into something more governmental, like highways or hospitals? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, much of which you have answered yourself. Here in the UK, there is much resentment at having to pay the BBC a licence fee of over £100 per annum for the privilege of listening to radio, and watching TV, irrespective of which channels you actually use. Many people own radios and TVs without ever using the BBC, but it's still illegal and highly punishable NOT to pay the licence fee. Me? I never listen to radio, and I get all my news from the Internet. And I only ever watch TV and films on commercial and cable channels. But every year, I am obliged to buy a licence which amongst other things, provides the BBC fatcats with vast sums of money, plus they and their families and their guests, including Government and Civil Service officials get guaranteed best seats at Wimbledon and the Royal Opera House etc. The sooner this rip off government goes - the better.

81.145.240.53 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC has become more like commercial providers because of competition. It didn't used to play many pop records, as its charter required a certain amount of live music. That only changed because of competition from pirate stations. Its become like commercial providers other ways too, but I suspect it hasn't been privatised because of a resistance to large changes.

As you can see above, some people wish the license fee were abolished, but personally, I'm glad they don't sell off the stations for various reasons, one of them being that commercial radio is predominantly crap. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The matter was most recently exposed to serious debate in 2006, with the publication of a green then white paper A public service for all: the BBC in the digital age. The UK government Department for Culture, Media and Sport has this to say.

The first answer to the question posed above presupposes that there is enough advertising revenue to support additional commercial channels. Although global TV advertising revenue continues to grow, an Ofcom study Economic Analysis of the TV Advertising Market from 2004 noted:

After a decade of strong growth, traditional TV advertising revenues fell sharply in 2001-2003. It remains uncertain whether this decline was merely ‘cyclical’, following the end of the Internet bubble, or ‘structural’, reflecting a move by advertisers away from traditional media. However, what seems clear is that the UK economic cycle can only partially explain the downturn. This suggests that the TV advertising market may now have begun to follow a new path, with advertising of the traditional channels barely growing while revenues in the multi-channel arena grow relatively briskly.

The implication is that there would be massively insufficient funds to support a commercial BBC, and it follows that ending the current arrangements would decrease the quality and breadth of output of all media - TV, Radio & Internet (think BBC website) in the UK. Our overlords have - thanks be - chosen to maintain the current system. My experience of TV watching in the US suggests that they have made the right decision. I'd rather pay the licence fee and whinge about it, as one does about paying taxes, than see it and the Beeb abolished. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three non-BBC Independent National Radio stations - Virgin Radio, Classic FM and talkSPORT - that is, radio stations that are carried on all transmitters. There are hundreds of Independent Local Radio stations that have a 20-50mile range and most are owned by GCap Media (discounting the BBC's own 46 local radio stations). The BBC is the only operator that can reach the entire population (on average) through non-digital tx/rx methods and thus the sale of the BBC channels would come under both competition/monopoly scrutiny but also civil-defence scrutiny. As well as this, the BBC's charter mandates balanced reporting on events and also providing services to minorities and others. If, for instance, Radio 2 was purchased by Fox/News International/BSkyB then the editorial line of news and music may then change to reflect the owners political/social agenda and elements of non-profitable services such as Welsh language transmissions and Polish language current affairs shows may be cut.
But I think the main reason for them not becoming nationalised is that the listeners are used to them now and the quality of the programming compared to the existing commercial radio networks isn't perceived to be of the same level. A lot of local radio stations popped up in the 1980s purely because the BBC didn't have the full coverage of the country, such as GWR FM Wiltshire which became the flagship of GCap in the 1990s. My main problem with these local stations is the necessary proliferation of advertising and the use of syndicated programs such as the Pepsi Chart, Late Night Love, The Jeremy Kyle Show and hit40uk. Nanonic (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us in the rest of the world would like to thank the British people for paying their taxes and license fees, so we could enjoy things like the World Service, news.bbc.co.uk, and about half of PBS's television lineup, which they could never have afforded to produce themselves. I assume Doctor Who turns a profit, but if not, thanks for that too. APL (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"why doesn't the British government sell the commercially viable radio stations and put the money into something more governmental, like highways or hospitals?" An interesting way of putting the question, coming from the only country in the Western world that doesn't have universal healthcare. The truth is that different countries have different ideas about what is proper for a government to do. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was an honest question; there's no need to turn it into some kind of international debate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular listener to BBC Radio 3 and 4 I am delighted that they are non-commercial, and resent the degree to which they have been made to ape commercial stations (in their incessant trailers, particularly). Very occasionally I listen to Classic FM, but I can stand hearing the ads for about half an hour before I have to turn off. I don't pay for a licence because I haven't got a television (and have an argument with the TV licence authority every couple of years because they can't believe that anybody who hasn't a licence can be within the law), but I value the BBC and would be glad to support it (as I did for my NPR station when I lived in St Louis MO). --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why they wouldn't privatize Radio 3 and 4, which seem like they wouldn't be commercially viable. But stations 1, 2 and 5 have formats similar to commercial radio, which is why I don't understand why they are government owned. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a Canadian, and therefore somewhat neutral third party (we have our public CBC which is heavily paid for by private advertisers), I might suggest that public broadcast remains useful to ensure that, at any time, citizens have access to media that is culturally relevant, and not simply popular. Our illustrious Pierre Trudeau once remarked that living next to the United States is a little like sleeping with an elephant; regardless of how gentle the beast, one tends to be affected by every twitch and grunt. I suspect much of the Anglophone world feels that way. American media has cornered the market as far as popularity is concerned (and deservedly so), but to maintain regional and national identity it is sometimes necessary to maintain the infrastructure for a broadcaster who will periodically produce some non-American content, regardless of what sort of ratings one expects. Monty Python, Coronation Street, the Nature of Things, -- these shows may not have existed were it not for public broadcasting, providing an outlet for the avant-garde and the risky production. Vance.mcpherson (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire debate has missed one critical point: the BBC is not the government. In the US, the disbursement of public funds to political broadcasters is often part of the political process (and the whole pork barrel problem). The UK tries to avoid this situation by completely separating the finances of the BBC from those of HM Government. The BBC's income comes from a licence fee on television reception equipment, a charge for the use of a service. So (it is argued) it must provide programming to everyone who uses that service. As the questioner wrote, these things "could be handled by commercial broadcasters" - but why should they be? In addition, radio spectrum is limited, so why should valuable airtime be given over to partisan interests? As a listener, is a radio station better for me because it makes a profit for someone else? It is also worth examining the whole field of public goods in economics.

A more minor error in the original question is the statement that "the private sector can provide popular-music and sports/talk broadcasting at no cost to the taxpayer or license-buyer". The taxpayer is also the consumer. What makes more sense: paying for broadcasting services by a levy on broadcasting equipment (channelled through a democratically-appointed Trust) or paying for broadcasting services by a levy on soap, detergent, tomato ketchup, etc. (channelled through privately-held corporations)? Matt's talk 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato expert

Today I saw an article in the Metro about Britain's first tommelier, or tomato expert. Where can I find out more? —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Pizza Express initiative; I can vouch for the improvement in at least one of their tomato-based recipes. You'd have to contact them, I guess, or at the least steal one of their tomato-themed menus. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Gord

My daughter is trying to research an artist called Antony Gord, but we're not getting any response within Wikipedia or on search engines like Google.

Have any of your experts heard of him?81.154.78.87 (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)wendy[reply]

Can you give us any more context? It's puzzling that google hasn't heard of him; I'm wondering whether you have the name right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google search tells me there's...

--David from Downunder (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Gormley perhaps? AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planes

Can I take my DS or PSP on to a plane and use during flight? 78.144.65.1 (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking you can, check with the airline (assuming you're talking about an airline flight rather than some other kind of plane). You will probably be required to turn it off for takeoff and landing. FiggyBee (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a policy statement or FAQ answer somewhere on your carrier's website. The British Airways website, for example, says:

At present, there are no restrictions on carrying hand held electronic games and personal radio or CD players etc. on-board British Airways flights, although we do recommend that all passengers keep hand baggage to a minimum.

Portable telephones and other electronic equipment such as games and computers may interfere with the aircraft systems and must be switched off during take-off, approach and landing.

Portable telephones or any other device that transmits data must remain switched-off whilst the aircraft is in flight.

and then goes on to give a list of exceptions and regulations for specific types of equipment. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code:WIKI user account problems.

I need someone to help me with a problem on Code:WIKI, the Code Lyoko wiki: I can't create an account! My IP is not blocked or anything, but when I try to create a user account, it says "use the form below." But there is no form. I don't know where else to ask because you need to have a user to edit on Code:WIKI. If it works for you, please create a user for me and name it "XAXAwins!" (the exclamation point is part of the name.) Make the password "123" and I will change it later. Please tell me immediately when this is done. Or, just tell me what's wrong so I can make the user myself. Thank you. Krem (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to talk to whoever runs that site. It uses mediawiki software but is not run by the mediawiki foundation which runs wikipedia. I'd presume they've screwed up their implementation somehow. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. I have to have a login to talk to him. Krem (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need cookies enabled. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And with the best will in the world, we cannot really help because it is not our website & we have little or no knowledge of it. sorry. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"we"?! Of course we can help. "lawyer commercials" are not our website either, but we still knew what to do: "Turn off your TV" and "Hire two on a no-win-no-fee basis and make them sue each other." --David from Downunder (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, could you at least try yourself? It may be my computer. If you can create one for me, as specified above, then that's all I need! :) Krem (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same problem. Contact website@robkohr.com - he runs editthis.info --David from Downunder (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a paragraph at the bottom of the front page that says "A warning to all users and newcommers, the wiki shield level has been moved to level 1, this prevents any new accounts from being created. We are sorry if this causes any inconvenience to new Lyoko Fanatics, we will announce if there is any change in the current situation. Thank You - The Guardians". It doesn't say what to do about it though. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition for a group of pigs/hogs

03-28-08

During a conversation about animals, the question arose re what does one call a group of full grown pigs? For instance--a gaggle of geese; a herd of cattle. Really would like an answer. Marjoo (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of animal names is a good page for this kind of question. It has a drift or herd of hogs, and herd, drove or mob of pigs. List of collective nouns by subject I-Z also has a fleet and a sounder of pigs. List of collective nouns by subject A-H doesn't feature hogs. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Our article "Boar" says "Wild boars live in groups called sounders." The OED defines "sounder" as "A herd of wild swine", which suggests that non-wild swine go in "herds", although "herd" is the default term for many groups of mammal. Our article "List_of_animal_names" shows different terms for pigs and hogs, herd, drove, and mob for the former and drift and herd for the latter. Another peek into the OED suggests that drove and drift are essentially the same word having to do with "driving" animals, not specific to our mud-loving cousins. Mob seems to be chiefly used in Australia and New Zealand for many kinds of animals; we've all heard of a mob of kangaroos. I would go with "herd" unless they were feral or wild and the people I was with were saying "sounder". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The OED (not that it's the Word of God or anything) doesn't recognize this definition of "fleet". --Milkbreath (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to favorite colors

I could almost put this in the science desk, but this concept is so easy that anyone for being human can answer.

I'm obviously under the assumption that favorite colors are genetic, and not much by choice. For example, my favorite colors are red, blue, green, and purple. I believe favorite colors are genetic. Matter fact, my top 4 favorite colors are the same as that of my paternal grandmother. When I was 6 or 7 or 8 years old, I asked my grandma (now deceased), what her favorite color was. She was an artist. She said red. Wow! Same as my favorite color! I asked her what her 2nd favorite color is. Blue. Wow, also my 2nd favorite color. Asked her what her 3rd favorite was. She said green, which was also my 3rd. Then asked 4th, which was purple, same as my 4th.

Now of course, I feel this is genetic. I'm not arguing that favorite colors are inherited, but is determined by genes. I'm 99% sure that my favorite 4 colors were genetic with my grandmother, and 1% sure it is purely coincidence. It could be purely coincidence because someone not biologically related to me could also have their 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th favorite color in the same order.

Now, some people that I don't get, is when you ask them what their favorite color is, they say "I don't know," or, they have to stop and think about it. How can anyone stop and think about it?! I asked a chemistry Ph.D what his favorite color was, and he said I don't know, probably red. I even asked a philosophy Ph.D that, and he said he'd never thought about it. But I bet I could ask children in Kindergarten or so, on what their favorite color is, and they'd have an answer. Some adults answer "I don't know, but when I was a child, my favorite color was __."

It could also be that people have tied favorite colors, or like all colors equally. That would also be determined by genes, I'd say. But the moment they like 1 color more than another, then they have tied favorite colors. However, I also feel that if your favorite color changes in your lifetime, then molecules in your brain have changed to reflect that.

I obviously feel my favorite colors are like sexual preference. I have no control over it. My 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th favorite color have been the same since as early as I can remember, so I would say it is definitely not my choice. Especially since my grandmother on my father's side has the same favorite color in that order.

1 would have to counter-argue, though, that if someone was born without a default favorite color, that they would have a gene that says so. And such a gene could say "whatever colors this person becomes attached to, could make that color their favorite color." Obviously, I feel such a gene(s) doesn't exist.

So my questions are for your comments, and if you know of any cases where someone in your family has the same favorite colors as you? Wikipedia doesn't have an article on people's favorite colors as a statistic, so maybe a survey or poll could do. Thanks. Neal (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sure there are many cases where people have the same color preferences as some of their ancestors, but given the small number of primary and secondary colors, this is not really compelling evidence for a genetic component. (Though given what we know about human color preferences, it seems likely that there is a genetic component, though not necessarily as simple a mechanism as say, eye color.) As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we should be looking for systematic studies (preferably in peer-reviewed journals), not anecdotal evidence (which for topics like this is quite unreliable). This evidence is entirely anecdotal, and also original, (see Wikipedia:No original research) so isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for people to discuss their favorite colors, but if anyone can find any scientific sources on the topic, that would be quite helpful. -- Beland (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I wasn't quite suggesting we have an article on favorite color as a survey/poll of Wikipedians. But more of a Wikipedian portal in the sense we have a WP:Facebook or a voluntary Wikipedians by month of arrival. I recall seeing pie charts on what countries Wikipedians are from, and etc. By the way, even if we could successfully survey thousands of Wikipedians by favorite color, all it takes is a source to publish it and we can cite it. It doesn't have to be a Wikipedia article but a Wikipedia:page reflecting what Wikipedians voted. I obviously find surveying Wikipedians is a lot more convenient than to survey people door to door, heh. But not that I care.. Neal (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Doesn't having 4 favourite colours greatly increase the chance that anyone would like at least one of them? Since you like 4 out of 7 (basic) colours, there is over a 50/50 percent chance that someone else will like one of them. My favourite colour is orange, but no one in my entire family likes it at all. Most of them like blue (even my colour-blind father, who can't tell it apart from green or red most of the time), but there are just as many who like all sorts of random colours. I believe that the colours someone likes (as well as their sexual preference) are more psychological than genetic and are developed very early in life. But that's just me. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but my argument was that you like them in the same order. Not pick 4 colors that you like and see if anyone else likes 1 of them.. Neal (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

By the way, color-blinds are still shown to have favorite color, even the same as their parents. The thing is, the waves of light are still the same, from which a conversation with a genius I once had, that being color-blind doesn't affect the way of whether it's your favorite color or not. By the way, another user I know, Canadian Paul, his favorite color is also orange, and says it's based on his childhood experience. Interesting that you say that too, I thought. Neal (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it is childhood experience, to a point. Everything I loved to eat as a kid is orange (either the food itself or the packaging it comes in), which is something I just recently noticed that surprised me. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what if I argued to you that even if you didn't have those childhood experiences, your favorite color would still have been orange? Neal (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

This is like the old nature vs. nurture arguement, and I believe it is a mix of both. I had a small liking of the colour as a child which was reinforced by experience. I would have a different favourite colour if I liked different foods. But then I wonder, is my liking of those foods tied to my liking of the colour or vice versa? In which case both of them would have to have been there from the beginning. But this is making my brain hurt now, thanks. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, even I have had ties with things red as my favorite color, such as cherries, and liking fruit punch juice. But you know, I don't like red spicy things. A genius I once talked to on IRC, said that you can have 3 kids, and put each 1 in a different colored bedroom for them to grow up in, but that won't force their favorite color to be the colored-room you put them in. The questions remains is if there is such a rare gene that determines favorite color by lifestyle.. Neal (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Re: But this is making my brain hurt now, thanks. Well I'm sorry you feel that way. :/ Neal (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

When asked what my favourite colour (as opposed to my favorite color) is, I always say "green". But I actually wear far more blue clothes than any other colour, and always have. I've always hankered after a green car, but the cars I've actually bought have been orange, red, yellow and white. So one's stated favourite colour might not actually mean anything much. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like red and blue more than the others, and I would say that I wear those colors quite a bit. However, almost all my t-shirts are solid colors (a few reds and blues, a couple blacks, a couple ash, maybe a green in there). Maybe I should get a yellow and an orange. Useight (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys are really misusing colons. Sigh. Neal (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I can see where you are getting off? I recently had read an article about what your grandmother ate as child would affect you not her own child, but the next generation of her child's child. Something to do the e genome. So then maybe the same thing with thinking. You have an interesting idea maybe you should test it some more.

Always

Cardinal RavenCardinal Raven (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Ah okay, you're suggest there are certain traits that are recurring in every other generation. I've heard about that, but I can't think of any examples. Neal (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yes that is what I am suggesting. You should watch the documentary Ghost in your Genes its a Nova documentary about how the e genome gives traits to every other generation. All though it doesn't have much about the color thing it has some things about how genetics is crossed over by every other generation instead of every generation. Its very interesting and it might be very helpful.

Always

Cardinal RavenCardinal Raven (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Neal. You have a sample size of two. There are a very small number of total primary colors. And it is unlikely that favorites are equiprobable—some colors are bright and have pleasant emotional associations (red, blue, green, orange), whilst others are not (brown), and others have strong gendered associations (pink, for example). So yeah. I don't really think you have any good reason to believe they are genetic. I find it unlikely that they would be, especially since there's no reason to believe, on the face of it, that favorite colors are anything very tangible or permanent. (I used to like purple a lot. Then it was certain blues and reds. Now I don't really have a favorite color.) In sum, I think your methodology is flawed, your assumptions are unwarranted, and your evidence nil, for this particular thesis. :-) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell if you're dodging my argument. No doubt, it is almost purely a coincidence that me and my grandmother on my father's side have the same favorite color. It becomes less of a coincidence that we have the same 2nd favorite color. And even less of a coincidence that we have the same 3rd favorite color. And down to 4th. Therefore, I'm arguing it is more likely genetic than coincidence to have the top 4 in the same order. Neal (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You cannot make any sort of logical argument from one example.My favourite colour is black.AFAIK ,no-one in my family has that as a favourite colour, so it's not genetic. hotclaws 07:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my argument. I didn't say you automatically inherit your favorite color from someone in your family. By genetic, I meant your favorite color is pre-determined by genes. Neal (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Pfiuu i couldn't read all that, I just have to point out that a lot of people don't have a favorite colo(u)r, number, food, clothe... I could never understand the favorite number thing for one, what use could it be ? Does one think about it and find it aestheticaly pleasant in a numeral way? Same for colors, do they have reassuring qualities ? I'll take all of them. 200.127.59.151 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a point/purpose to have favorite numbers and such. Again, I think people that do have favorite colors, have them for gene. Neal (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Cost of printed circuit boards, silicon and plastics

How much does that hard plastic of which toys are made cost? And the printed circuit board of a radio? And a ton of silicon? Thanks. --Taraborn (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site has prices for various types of plastic, including ABS, which is what they make toys out of. That site also has a price for silicone; metallic silicon costs about US$2000 per ton. PCBs aren't made of a single type of plastic, they're a kind of fiberglass weave, but I found one site that says "PCBs can cost as little as US$0.05 per square inch on larger production runs." HTH FiggyBee (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Taraborn (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7:84

7:84 were a theatre group. Named around the statistic that 7% of the UK population owned 84% of the assets/wealth. This was in 1966.

How can I find the current ratio for the UK or even any country ?

Has anybody criticised the measurement process as they have done with the Sunday Times Rich List ?

This is an important statistic as it tells us whether the country as a whole is getting richer or just a select few.

Thanks

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you like to crunch your own data, there's a lot of inequality data here: http://www.wider.unu.edu/research/Database/en_GB/database/

Comparability between countries is an issue, though. Jørgen (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, 7:84 Scotland are still going, though apparently only just. --ColinFine (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Dairy Cows

I was wondering where I could find information on Highland DAIRY Cattle? I have looked but found nothing. I have only seen a sentence or two that just mentions them, but no real information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While Highland cattle are generally considered a beef breed for commercial purposes, traditionally they were used by crofters as an all-purpose breed (ie beef and dairy). For this reason, they remain popular with smallholders and hobby-farmers. The milk, I believe, is less plentiful than regular dairy breeds but high in milk/butter fats. If you search and follow up links for highland cattle you will probably find milking information. A VERY quick google search yielded these, for example: [4] [5] [6], and you will easily find more. Try searching for "highland cattle milk" rather than dairy. Gwinva (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Highlands (of Scotland?) do not have the rich grasslands required to support dairy herds.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For dairy herds, no, but enough for house cows and small herds on mixed farms. The Highland cattle breed is extremely hardy and prized for its ability to graze on rough land. Commercial dairy farms will, of course, choose specialist dairy breeds, but there remains a niche market for less-intensively-reared products, which Highland cattle might satisfy; moreover, those who are interested in self-sufficiency would be attracted, particularly if their land or climate is rough. Of course, the highland breed is found throughout the world, now. Gwinva (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPS Customs Forms

I just sold an ebay item to canada and i will be using United Parcel Service, however it is very difficult to find the customs forms that are required to ship there on the website. are there any websites that may have blank copies of the customs forms available, or should i just go to the UPS store to get this done.--logger (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best to just go to the UPS store as they can answer any questions you have about customs requirements for the specific items that you are shipping as well as any fees that may be involved. Dismas|^(talk) 01:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Fairbanks

When checking his Wikipedia page I found no refrences in his WRITING credits to his 1917 book "LAUGH and LIVE" A.L.BURT, Publishers of New York (190 pages)…<email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.23.246 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Oh, and "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --hydnjo talk 00:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]