Miscellaneous desk
< May 24	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 26 >

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.

May 25

Soveit Photo Manip.

Per Censorship of images in the Soviet Union, how did the censors edit out the people in the photographs? Surely, digital post-processing software did not exist back then. Acceptable (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airbrushing was one method. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other methods are here[1]. It used to be called "photo retouching", now "image manipulation" which seem smore manual than it is. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be amused to know, no doubt, that almost all of the tools in Photoshop for retouching have analog equivalents! One of the most famous Photoshop tools, the mask layers, comes from actual darkroom practices. You can do just about anything in Photoshop in a darkroom... it's just a LOT harder and a LOT more time consuming. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whom would you call?

Imagine that you need to go to Scotland for a job interview. Your direct contact person in the company is English and you understand her accent pretty well. However, you would like to have some exposure to Scottish English before you travel there. Whom would you call in Scotland to experience the accent? 217.168.1.48 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening sir or madam. Because you did not specify if the person was to be famous or not. If my information is correct I would call David Tennant. That is if my information is correct. I hope I helped you a bit. I hope you have a positively wonderful evening.Rem Nightfall (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall[reply]

Why would you want to call someone to listen to the accent? Listen to these e.g. [2]--Lisa4edit (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Rem Nightfall: I think it will be rather difficult to come through to this guy.

@Lisa4edit: radio is too perfect. However, I think a podcast will be appropriate and I'll give it a try. 217.168.4.191 (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. I didn't know it wasn't a fantasy question. I'm sorry about my misunderstanding, but wouldn't it just be wonderful to talk to the actor of Doctor Who(totally lost tract). Sorry once again.Rem Nightfall (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall[reply]

See if you can find some of Billy Connolly's stand up routines.Funny and full of Scottish slang such as "plukes" for spots.hotclaws 07:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also plenty of Scottish movies you could watch, especially Trainspotting (not the US dialogue version!), not to mention Shrek, Fat Bastard and so on.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am English-born but have lived in Scotland for over 35 years and can tell you that despite Scotland being a relatively small-population country of some 5 million souls, there are so many wildly differing accents as to make comprehension for many Scoto-English natives nigh impossible. I am not talking about Gaelic either, merely English spoken in vastly different ways. But I think the advice about listening to Billy Connelly is good advice, or Rab. C. Nesbitt, or River City, or even Trainspotting. Best of all would be The Steamie - very educational and very funny too. 92.16.221.21 (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Scotland? Scottish accents from the Hebrides will be different to those down by the border.Shetland is nearly Norwegian.Glasgow is indecipherable Lemon martini (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make change?

As I sit here watching my pathetic life go by, I am besieged by the overwhelming desire to make change. And not namby pamby change. Im talking REAL change! For example, what if I'm tired of lookin at trees and want to eliminate them worldwide? (I know, but that's why we have oxygen tanks.) Do we need to have suffering in the world? Ask the people going thru that. Spoiler alert!- They dont need it. Gravity? Who needs that ball and chain? Obviously sometimes, but not all the time. In short, if I so desired how would I make pink green , 1 plus 1 equal 3, break every law of thermodynamics (especially the second), and still get any woman I want?--Dr. Carefree (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr C, I can take some of the weight off your shoulders by assuring you that gravity doesnt exist.... Mhicaoidh (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a job as a Cashier you will be able to make change hundreds of times a day. The way you make change is to determine the amount of coins and currency needed to make up the difference between the amount tendered and the total for the purchase and taxes, taking into consideration credits, coupons, discounts and returns. Edison (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to change something, I'd say run for some political office. Useight (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an amusing (intensely American) thought, but frankly I don't think it's the best way for an individual to produce change. The process of actually getting into office and the obligations it entails means that most political officers accomplish a lot more real change in the end than they might wish they could. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no substantial opposition to the change you're trying to bring about, the political approach is redundant; if there is, are you so sure it's a good idea? —Tamfang (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here [3] you can make changes without the rest of us having to figure out how to fill oxygen tanks without binding more of it in producing the energy needed to do so than we can put in the tank. Real bummer, that would be. (I guess you get your power from the outlet in the wall :-)--Lisa4edit (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know several people who have gone back to school at age ~40 in the hope of changing the world through technology. That may be the most efficient way. —Tamfang (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're not angry enough? As Malcolm X said, "Usually when people are sad, they don't do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about change." Xn4 14:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Join the Peace Corps, go somewhere else, help people directly on a day-to-day basis, stop worrying about gravity and thermodynamics because those aren't what are causing your ennui. Leave your bourgeois boredom behind, do something real, make a real change. Or do you want to make a real change in your life and the lives of others? Most people are afraid of change, I wouldn't be surprised if you were too. It's an easy thing to wish for change, it's hard to actually do something about it. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you want to make a change, the place to start is with the Man in the Mirror. —An gr 15:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on whether you want to change things for the better or for the worse... Of course, any lasting change requires a lot of determination and motivation, so it would have to be something you're very passionate about. I like the removal of gravity. That would indeed be a weight off my shoulders. Could you arrange that for me? Steewi (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I could answer this question properly myself, so instead I decided simply to provide some quotations from a great philosopher, which I think will be useful here.:

'You can't go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it's just a cage.'
'Men should die for lies. But the truth is too precious to die for.'
'You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For Themselves.'
'After all, when you seek advice from someone it's certainly not because you want them to give it. You just want them to be there while you talk to yourself.'
'Chapter Fifteen, Elementary Necromancy', she read out loud. 'Lesson One: Correct Use of Shovel…'
'You couldn't stop Tradition. You could only add to it.'
'"When it's time to stop living, I will certainly make Death my number one choice!"'
'What had she ever earned? The reward for toil had been more toil. If you dug the best ditches they gave you a bigger shovel.'
'Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions.'
'Are any of you serious conspirators bent on the overthrow of the government?'
'"The secret is not to dream," she whispered. "The secret is to wake up. Waking up is harder. I have woken up and I am real. I know where I come from and I know where I'm going.'
'I want to eat chocolates in a great big room where the world is a different place.'
'Always move fast. You never know who's catching up!'
'The freedom to succeed goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail.'
'Eden and Camelot, the wonderous garden-worlds of myth and legend, are here now. This is about as good as it ever gets. Mostly, it's a lot worse. And it won't stay like this for very long.'

HS7 (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking your question with integrity (ie, willing to be transformed in the process of asking/receiving insight), I would like to participate in this dialog with you since I have real interest in the answer to your question also. The reason you must be open to your own transformation starts immediately as soon as you start asking a question. There are good questions and bad questions...open-ended questions and closed questions. A good question (ie, an 'appropriate' question) is much more important than any answer, although the answer(s) is important too. Imagination plays an important role also. To ask questions that lead somewhere requires curiosity, critical thinking, imagination, hunger, courage, etc. Everything I have mentioned so far I have received from reading folks like Einstein, Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn, Peter Berger, Thomas Torrance, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, etc. Post-Modern Hermeneutics, Sociology of Knowledge, Philosophy of Science are all incredibly useful in your context, and their conclusions are fairly easy to understand.

So now, I hope I have managed to lose your interest if you are not THAT seriously interested in your question.

But if you ARE THAT serious, have a look at the saga of 'Muhammad Yunus' and his 'Grameen' effort (for which he received the 2006 Nobel Prize). WikiPedia has some on him. Then read his 'Banker to the Poor' to see how Bangladesh has changed as a result of the curiosity and questioning and following-up of this single individual.

I look forward to your response. --Ckdavis (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penis fantasy

Do women/girls sometimes fantasize about (images of) the male penis? If so, what proportion do?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.141.94 (talk • contribs)

It's very hard to get good sociological data on internal thoughts in general, especially sexual ones. At best you're going to get, "how many claim to, in one particular context in which they were asked." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women and girls absolutely fantasize about penises, just like men and boys fantasize about vaginas. And, yes, plenty of men and boys also fantasize about penises, just like women and girls also fantasize about vaginas. A whole lot of people fantasize about both. People have an endless fascination with sexual organs, which has enabled an entire industry based on feeding and encouraging sexual fantasies to grow and succeed. As for how many people fantasize about the penis specifically, it's impossible to tell. Essentially all people have sexual fantasies, though, and they're considered to be the sign of a healthy person. Taking a semi-educated guess, I would say that among heterosexuals, it can be safely said that more women fantasize about penises at one time or another than not. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knee trembling disease

Why do people (mostly young men) tremble their knees whilst sitting and usually whilst eating/ I find it grossly annoying. Is there something wrong with their legs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.141.94 (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's anything in particular that causes it, possibly just a habit. I see it sometimes to, bouncing their knee up and down. I only find it annoying when it shakes the table or the desk or something. Useight (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's a disease. I just always figured it was due to some small form of hyperactivity or just a nervous thing where the kid doesn't want to be sitting in a classroom but instead by out playing sports. Dismas|^(talk) 05:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excess energy, feeling you could "jump out of your skin"? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged. Speaking for myself, there's nothing wrong with my legs - I just like doing something rather than just sitting there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chance has it I am bouncing my knee/leg right at this moment. I find it a peculiar thing indeed, and I can't help think that it lies somewhat outside my control. Even holding the leg still, there is a certain bit of movement, strictly involuntary. Resting the foot's weight on the forward third of my foot, and forming a somewhat acute angle between my thigh and leg, it seems impossible to keep it properly still. Must be something located in the foot, I reckon. Do we not have an article on this matter? Scaller (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "diseases" go, there is Restless Leg Syndrome, but that is unlikely what you are referring to. You're probably talking about fidgeting, "to move around nervously or idly". I do not know the cause, but I'd guess it's likely boredom - even if the rest of your body is otherwise occupied, your legs/fingers/etc. aren't doing anything, and so people fidget to keep them occupied. It's hardly a "disease" - in fact, I seem to recall studies that people who fidget are less likely to be obese (a disease, BTW) than those who don't, on account of all the calories they burn in their repetitive movements. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it only young men predominantly who do it? Ive never seen a woman, children or older men doing it. Is it a sign of nervous tension or excitement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.177.27 (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (a self-confessed young man) was actually doing this when I got to the question! I'm not sure entirely why I do it, as it's not entirely involuntary, but I am often unaware of doing it. I have come across a couple of girls my age who do the same thing, though.--Diniz (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree that's is likely to be Restless leg syndrome. Although I would stress that this isn't a disease by definition because you can't catch it for a start. I think "condition" is actually a better word to use. ;-) --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing it since I was a kid. I'm a guy. 125.21.243.66 (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me Figure Out Song Please

Hi, this is going to sound trivial but it's really bugging me. I heard a really great song today but I can't remember its name. Someone told me "Leap and Bounce" or something like that (relatively unintellectual, two words describing motion, the first was somewhat uncommon), and the artist/album started with a syllable that sounded like "Duke". The only problem is that I've forgotten the real name of the song, and would really like to know. It was an electronic/dance track, and sounded like it was produced recently (probably last couple of years). Can anyone help me out? Thanks 121.216.129.51 (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been Fluke (band)? Rockpocket 07:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parking direction

Why do so many parking garages and parking lots have signs asking you not to back in to the parking lots? Why do they care whether you park with the nose of your car pointing inward or outward? —An gr 08:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do these lots have diagonal or perpendicular spaces? If the spaces are diagonal, I would think the reasoning would be that you could mess up the flow of traffic when pulling in/out. I've never seen a sign like that. And if the space is perpendicular, I prefer to "battle park" as often as I can. Dismas|^(talk) 08:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit con) Presumably it's because most drivers are more likely to hit another car when backing between them than when backing out. It's also quicker in getting you out of the way of other cars.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas: Perpendicular. "Battle park"??? Shantavira: The first reason makes sense, but for the second reason, surely the effect is canceled out by how much longer it takes you to unpark your car by backing out when you're leaving. —An gr 08:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen such a sign (in Great Britain). I was taught to reverse in and drive out, and rule 201 of the highway code (broadly interpreted) seems to recommend it. I think the ides is that it's more dangerous/disruptive to reverse into moving traffic. Algebraist 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some photos I found by entering "do not back in" into Google Images: [4], [5], [6]. These may all be from the States, but I've seen similar notices here in Germany too. In German, the sign is formulated as a positive command rather than a negative one: Vorwärts einparken, i.e. "Park forwards". —An gr 09:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to see what sort of answers I'd get, I asked the same question at the German reference desk. In addition to Shantavira's suggestion that it's about getting you into your parking place quickly, someone there suggested it's to keep diesel exhaust fumes from staining the wall, meaning it would have to be painted more often. —An gr 10:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a fairly stupid rule anyway, so it will soon be the law in the UK no doubt.--Artjo (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that the answer from the German WP interrogation and punishment desk is correct. Your own (US?) samples show walls with some sort of cladding and one which appears to be rendered in some whitewash mortar. You do not have to idle you motor very long until the wall is full of unsightly (and unhealthy) muck when the exhaust pipe is fairly close to it. A minor problem may be that fumes can be dispersed more easily when the rear of the car points towards the driveway. If you fill your boot with the collected groceries whilst left and right motorists run their engine you are likely to plummet unconsciously into the gap between your sausages and hubby´s sauerkraut. As a corollary, loading stuff into the boot when it is at the rear is a bit awkward. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perpendicular parking means perpendicular to the flow of traffic, e.g. ||||||| whereas diagonal would be \\\\\\\ And "battle parking" is to park so that you can pull out forwards quickly. It's a military slang term meaning parking so that when an attack happens and you need to pull out quickly, you can do so forward instead of having to back up. Dismas|^(talk) 12:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understood what you meant by "perpendicular", and indeed I've seen the signs used where parking is perpendicular. —An gr 12:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My father-in-law ran his own transport business and INSISTED on his drivers parking their vehicles facing outwards (described as Battle Parking above). The reason was so as to allow the engine to be accessed by a Road Recovery Mechanic in the event of it not starting on demand. In that circumstance, a remote Jump Start Cable could be more readily attached than otherwise. So now, I always park my car that way, except where the busy-ness of following traffic would be severely disrupted. 92.16.221.21 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be because in some places cars only have license plates on the back, so reversing in would obscure it from the police / parking enforcement officer? Think outside the box 20:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe in some places, but not here in Germany, where cars have license plates both back and front. —An gr 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only sign I've seen on this matter in the UK was to insist that people reversed into the parking area since "it is illegal to reverse back out into a main road". I always wondered if that was true, but never got around to looking. Perhaps I shall now. Unless anyone else knows? Gwinva (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, it's rule 201 of the Code. Not any specific law that I can tell. Algebraist 21:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, missed that comment (I obviously can't read). It's in the road coad here (rule 177), but is a recommendation rather than law, and doesn't refer to parking spaces. But reversing into parking spaces was always presented as easier and safer. Gwinva (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I said 'broadly interpreted'. In case anyone was confused (I was!), the discrepancy on rule number is because Gwinva's code is out of date. Algebraist 22:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it applies here, but some parking lots around buildings want you to park nose-in towards the building so that exhaust fumes aren't being spewed towards the windows. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITALIANS ASK THE TIME

Why in Italy there is a tendency to ask the time,from a public service telephone more frequently than in other countries? In other words Italians telephone to ask the time from a telephone centre quite often. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleop (talk • contribs) 09:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC) ^{[citation needed]} (tag added by hydnjo talk 12:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe they just got into the habit. Might one factor be the cost? In the UK it costs 30p to phone Timeline, whereas I can get the guaranteed right time for free from my radio-controlled watch, television, GPS, or digital radio.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn good way to make some money?! 65.163.115.254 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and the US Armed Forces

If I were in the US Army and declared my religion as Matrixism would the Veterans Administration put the sign of Matrixism on my tombstone? I know that they were forced to put the Wiccan symbol on a deceased veteran's grave marker recently but does the new policy apply to a religion like Matrixism. 71.231.121.77 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US Department of Veterans Affairs has a list of authorized emblems for use on headstones, markers and memorial plaques. The Wiccan pentacle was added to the list in settlement of a federal lawsuit brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The first veteran's grave to be marked with it was that of Jan O'Rourke, who had been a Wiccan priestess. By Matrixism, I think you mean the 'Path of the One' spawned by The Matrix series? You might like to check with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, but I shall be surprised if they've authorized a Path of the One emblem yet. It may be that they haven't had any request to do so. Xn4 14:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to kidnap your topic, but shouldn't the Veterans Administration consider the Flying Spaghetti Monster also as a religion? 217.168.1.95 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have not done so yet (there's a full list at United States Department of Veterans Affairs emblems for headstones and markers, btw). You're welcome to petition them, but be warned that more serious religions have tried and so far failed. Algebraist 23:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As if the Flying Spaghetti Monster could catch Matrixism let alone kidnap it. Matrixism is like the wind. It is all around us. 71.231.121.77 (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kind'a like Jediism/The Force, ehh?

Atlant (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they'd put "Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fh'tagn!" on my tombstone. Ziggy Saw dust 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Vivien Thomas

The article on Dr. Vivien Thomas has his name repeatedly spelled incorrectly. It should be spelled with an "e" not an "a" .– —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.90.104 (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be quite common. Look at this. The page title says Vivian but the letter is clearly signed Vivien. His autobiography as shown on his article here says Vivien also. Fribbler (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was caused just a few days ago in this edit, which even edited the interwiki links, making them go dead. I've undone the damage, and I'll warn the anonymous editor who was responsible. Xn4 15:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Harbour

I just watched the Pearl Harbour movie (Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett version) - AGAIN - and it prompted a few questions that I am sure I could research but I know the answers would be largely a matter of speculation so I hope you folk don't mind me asking them here for your informed opinions. First, tragic though the number of deaths and injuries incurred were, were the resultant half-million casualties that America suffered during it's involvement in WWII worth them getting involved after Pearl Harbour? Second, what happened to the careers of the very senior Navy personnel who prevaricated when faced with the "missing Japanese Fleet" information by Navy Intelligence? And third, was it true (as advised to the President following the Pearl Harbour attacks) that by risking a retaliatory Aircraft Carrier attack on Tokyo with the possible outcome of those Carriers being defeated by the Japanese, the victorious Japanese could have launched an invasion on American soil that could not have been stopped before "it reached Chicago"? Big questions I know but I am always amazed at the knowlegeable information that Wikipedians can rise to in such circumstances. Thanks for any responses. 92.16.221.21 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, I personally do think it was worth going to war. First of all, the entire country wanted to (heh, opposite of today...), and financially/militarily we were fairly ready (just needed a bit of modernization, but that came quickly). Also, the Japanese had control of most of Oceania... and they wanted more (China, probably Russia, India, or Australia later); having them right across the ocean wasn't a good position to be in, considering the Japanese had one of the largest and best navies at the time (nearly on par with the American and British ones; also, they were allied with the Germans, which wasn't good news). Your third question is most likely a rumor, and don't know about the second. · AndonicO ^Engage. 17:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Japanese couldn't seriously invade the United States. Their army wasn't big enough, being tied down in China and needed to take over the Philippines, etc., nor was the navy capable of transporting, much less supplying a sizable force across thousands of miles of ocean. Consider that it took until 1944 before the Allies had built up enough manpower and materiel to invade Europe across just a few miles of water, even though they had overwhelming naval and air superiority. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a severe challenge for Japan to even hold and supply the Hawaiian Islands, much less supply an invasion force in the U.S. They did seize islands off Alaska with an eye to using those as bases for attacks against the continental U.S. But the U.S population was by no means eager to enter a World War immediately before the Pearl Harbor attack.Isolationism was very strong. Roosevelt wanted to help Britain, but there was no national will to jump into the war, to save the Soviet Union or the Jewish population of Europe, or the European powers (with their worldwide colonial empires) from the Germans and Italians, or to save the Chinese and other Asians from the Japanese. The U.S also had a relatively small military before World War 2 and lacked large numbers of modern military aircraft or tanks. The U.S did have lots of factories and skilled labor and natural resources which enabled it to transform swiftly to war production and be the "arsenal of democracy" shipping military equipment to the other Allied nations as well as equipping its own enlistees and draftees. Edison (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Pearl Harbor is a place name, and is spelled without the u no matter what dialect of English you speak. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. Pearl Harbour was generally spelt with a U by many British publications until relatively recently. The idea that the only correct spelling is the one without a U has become more prevalent with the general idea that endonyms are for some reason preferable to exonyms. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to be about names in foreign languages. The only correct spelling in English is the one without the u. --Trovatore (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We go through the trouble of including your 'u' in "Labour Party", you could at least return the favor with Pearl Harbor. ;) --D. Monack | talk 09:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. [7] Malcolm XIV (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Labour Party (in the sense of the UK party) without the u is of course also incorrect, even if the NYT does it. As is spelling Australian Labor Party with the u, even though Aussie English uses it in most contexts. --Trovatore (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say a big thankyou to the respondents above who offered up their opinions when answering my questions. And no thanks whatever to the pedants who completely swerved the question off course by worrying about the presence or absence of a letter "u". I wonder if when Yamamoto attacked Pearl Harbour/Harbor would they have attacked his Japanese forces with their Webster's dictionaries? 92.0.212.98 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in that case they would probably have been Morocco bound. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 greatest songs of all time

I know its subjective, but what are the 10 greatest songs of all time? Ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.173.176 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP has Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and googling "ten greatest songs of all time" yields 115 million results. Have fun. :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Rolling Stone restricts its list to rock songs, rather than something like "Amazing Grace" for example. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC carried out an internet poll a few years ago along these lines asking people to nominate songs. From memory the first three were in Hindi or Urdu and the best English language record was 'Bohemian Rhapsody' by Queen at 4th position - as my memory serves. I thought it was a wonderful comeuppance for anglocentricity (if that's a word) So, you pays yer money. . . . Richard Avery (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last ten winners of the Eurovision Song Contest, obviously. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#1 Little Brown Jug. Everything else is #2 through whatever. --Endless Dan 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Bird, Sheep Go To Heaven, Bohemian Rhapsody, Ziggy Stardust, Flying High Again, Hotel California, The City Of New Orleans, Mardy Bum, Yakety Sax, and Scenes from an Italian Restaurant. In that order. Ziggy Saw dust 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prestigious university that accept every student

Is it true that some prestigious European state universities accept any student with a high-school degree? GoingOnTracks (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. The number of places on a course is limited by availability of staff, lecture venues, budget concerns etc. Academic selection is therefore necessary lest the university have to accept thousands of people onto a course. Fribbler (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many European countries use the numerus clausus to restrict the number of students they accept. —An gr 18:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some non-market oriented courses (read Philosophy, History, Classics ...) these numerus clausus is so low that you can say they accept any one, even at serious universities. If you want to study something like Medicine you will have to have good grades at any decent university. 217.168.1.95 (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is also true here in Ireland where we use the CAO points system, whereby you recieve points based on the grades you recieve in the Leaving certificate. Some courses (few courses though) will list AQA as their points criteria: Any Qualified Applicant, that is anyone who has passed secondary school (high school). Still, I don't believe there is any "prestigious european university" who accepts anyone at all, with no academic selection criteria, to any course. Except, perhaps, as comes to mind; the Open university? Fribbler (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting any one would be physically impossible. Keep in mind than many universities in Europe are free (like free lunch). If - on the top of that- there were no numerus clausus or other acceptance criteria, the flow of student would be plainly too big. BTW, Is the Open University pretigious?217.168.1.95 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(exdent) The open university, prestigious, hmmm. Yes and no. Not in the classical sense; it doesn't have a long history and ivy covered walls. But it it certainly no Degree mill and its alumni are sought after by employers since "attendance" displays a certain personal drive, and it is a very well known university (note: no COI here, I attended an old-school ivy-covered university :-) ). Fribbler (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Belgium, yes, pretty much, though there is an entrance exam if you wish to study Medicine or Dentistry. Question is, of course, whether there are any universities in Belgium that are considered prestigious. :p Random Nonsense (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotic Commercials: Market Demographic does'nt incl. intelligent people, such as those found here on Wikipedia.

What is the marketing demographic for these Commercials ? These are really getting stupid. Burger King has had some really idiotic ones in which a motorist actually pushes another car out of a drive thru, another in which a man jumps out of a moving car, the car striking another one. Lazyboy just had a really idiotic one. Are the CEOs and the other company execs on drugs or something? Has anyone else seen these idiotic commercials? 65.163.115.254 (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of most commercials is to get you to think about the company and the commercial. Guess what! That's what you're doing. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in a negative way; is that what they want?--Artjo (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.T. Barnum, renowned as a great showman/publicist, is reputed to have said "There is no such thing as bad press, as long as they spell your name right." The worst thing to happen to a company is for people to forget about them. And for every member of the public which is turned off by the ads, there are likely to be ten others who are more likely to think of the company because of them. (P.T. Barnum also is reported to have said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people") -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen those, but it sounds like you are complaining about them being inappropriate more than about being idiotic. You consider acts of violence such as those depicted there to be no laughing matter. However, the CEOs don't care (directly) about such issues - as long as enough people (all things considered) like the ads and are influenced to buy the product, they will approve of them. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even silly brand names get attention[8]. As above by being stupid, and an analytical person would notice that (others take it as given), it's got that demographic through a negative effect. Another saying is even bad publicity is good publicity. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The advertising has helped them though. I may not remember this question a week from now but subconsciously I'll probably remember the brands of Burger King and LaZboy. And thus your viewing of them has influenced me. It may even make me crave a burger while lounging on my couch. The advertising has had its desired effect, it's gotten the name out in conversation and recognized. Dismas|^(talk) 01:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right" Corvus cornix_talk

O Corvus, with that attention to detail, you can now be my representative on earth. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get 15% of your Wikipedia edits? :) Corvus cornix_talk 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15% of GFDL? Sign! Sign! ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protesting the US only?

Are other nations besides the US being protested without the security forces mobilizing to destroy protesters, as to what happened in Tianaman Square in 1989? A lot of conservatives believe that IF the protesters, mainly the Environmentalists, were to, for example, protest China's pollution levels, human rights record, were to protest in a place like that, they'd end up being treated AS rebels and insurgents and dealt with accordingly, as in being killed and/or placed into prison, loony bins. 65.163.115.254 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to hear some of these conservatives, especially Michael Savage (commentator) and Mark Levin (conservative). 65.163.115.254 (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters this. Seems protests are even allowed in China. Environmental protests occur in practcally every country in the world. No prisons, no loony bins; even if officials are naturally embarrassed by them, since it highlights their actions. I think those radio commentators are misinformed at best, and lying to suit their own agendas at worst. Fribbler (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many countries allow peaceful protest against all kinds of issues, but there are limits and, even in the most liberal countries, violent protests attract the attention of the police who will attempt to arrest the most violent of the protesters. However, some other countries, usually those where the government rule by force and without the mandate of the people, most types of protest (whether peaceful or not) are ruthlessly put down by the police or military.

Protests against the Chinese government's poor record on human rights often use what happened in Tianamen Square as an example. These protests take place in many countries around the world, but the subject is generally censored inside China. That said, China is now opening up on many previously hidden things and protests have taken place inside China over issues such as poor environmental standards, low wages, and local government corruption with various levels of success. After the recent earthquake, I think we can expect protests over the poor construction standards of local schools to take place in China. Astronaut (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English Language in Mexican telenovelas

Why is the English language used in Mexican telenovelas? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen one of these myself. These are intended to influence the citizens in the US by depicting conservative, religious people in the US AS racists and nuts. I've seen one in which a "coyote" was escorting illegal aliens into the US and he was armed, he patted the .45 he had saying that, "No damn fucking gringo asshole had better get in MY way at all!" I was in the SW US and had some friends who were Mexican who translated what was on the TV. 65.163.115.254 (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be amazed on what is on these shows. 65.163.115.254 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]