Miscellaneous desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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 29

Paypal and payoneer

I want to transfer money from my paypal account to payoneer What can I do? 217.168.0.4 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo answers had a go at a similar question. Fribbler (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeroom

What are the chances of there being only one female homeroom teacher in a year level at a particular school? What are the chances of there being no female homeroom teachers in a year level at that school? Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 06:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could do a statistical analysis based on the number of teachers and the observation that (approximately) half of the human race is female, and use something like a binomial distribution table at p=0.5 . But this would be correct only as an exercise in statistical methods - it makes the fundamental assumption that the probability of being a teacher and the probability of being female are independent, and I don't think this is a reliable assumption. You'd need real-world data (from surveys etc) on the proportion of male and female teachers - at that particular year level, since in the UK at least it seems that teachers of younger children are more likely to be female. Getting that data would be the hardest part of the task; once you have it you can use tables or whatever to find the probability of a particular number as you asked. I'll let someone else explain that bit (binomial or an appropriate approximation for larger numbers) as my A level stats course was a very long time ago :-) 81.187.153.189 (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge number of extra variables here which would affect the probability. For example my high school had only one female homeroom teacher in the entire school (around forty teachers). My grade school had only one male teacher. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try an all boys school or a quran school to get better odds.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask what on earth the question meant, but found that we have a homeroom article which tells me. --ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Career

Is it possible to become a computer software engineer before becoming an animator? Aanusha Ghosh (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer: Of course. It's not like one prevents the other from happening? It's easier to move through branches/major careers if you can find some 'link' or something that helps you transfer the knowledge/experience you gain in the former into the latter (or at least at the interview stage give the impression that your unrelated prior career is beneficial to the role). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshing this out a bit more, there's no meaningful similarity between a software engineer and an animator (even a computer-using animator) at all. One would similarly ask if it's possible to become an airline pilot before becoming a doctor. — Lomn 13:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However it is possible to be a software engineer working on computer animation; that isn't the same thing as an animator of course. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or an animator drawing a software engineer. — Lomn 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem you'd be facing is that unless you do some of your studying part-time while holding a job, it will take you an awful long time to reach the job market studying two unrelated subjects sequentially. You can get fewer credits for your existing degree applicable to a major that has little in common. That means you can't shave that much time off the time required to get a second degree. Employers look for job experience. It will take more effort to find, but there are always some jobs that overlap in several areas. For those a degree in one of those areas is usually sufficient. "Sliding" into a new profession not generally associated with ones original degree isn't that uncommon. As career path planning I'd not recommend aiming for it, though. --76.111.32.200 (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burn

what is the minimum temp. for combustion to take place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Combustion and look at the "Temperature" section. -- SGBailey (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some chemicals, like white phosphorus, start to burn in air a fairly low temperatures, 35 Celsius [1]. Edison (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrophoric chemicals burn at or below room temperature. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flash point, fire point, and autoignition temperature may be of interest. --Carnildo (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small plant, suitable for an office environment

Hi all,

My department at work is marking World Environment Day next week by running a Secret Santa-style draw in which we each buy each other a plant to go on our desks. This will be to the value of £3 to £5 (GBP). I'd appreciate some advice/recommendations on suitable and interesting plants which are likely to be easy to find in an ordinary garden centre in the UK, and which are appropriate for an office environment – so, at a guess, small, slow-growing, hardy and not needing too much water or other care.

Thanks! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys have cactuses readily available in the UK?--droptone (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With max respect cacti are the most boring plants in the world to have on your desk. They need large amounts of sunshine to ensure flowering and confining one to a desk would come close to plant cruelty.You need to think about plants that will flourish in shady places. Ferns, peace lily and the like. Any plant will be fine for a few weeks so you need to select with at least the medium future in mind. Have a look here [2] for a wide selection of indoor and office plants (makes it sound as though some offices are outside).Richard Avery (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Palms grow well in this enviroment. Also, I used to have a rosemary plant on my desk, and a Mint plant, that way I could eat parts of if when I got bored. They all three lasted a year or so each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to grow more exotic plants, have a look at this USB Greenhouse Think outside the box 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cacti, rosemary, mint are not good because they need a lot of light to do well. Most ferns need more humidity than the office environment provides. I have no idea what a "love palm" is. Plants that will do well in the typical office environment (low light, low humidity, mid temperatures) include Spathiphyllum (Peace Lily)[3], Syngonium (Arrowhead Plant)[4], Sansevieria (Mother-in-law's Tongue)[5], Dracaena [6], Chlorophytum (Spider Plant)[7], and Philodendron [8]. Some of these will grow large with time (depending on the specific varieties), but they are all plants that will grow and be healthy--not just hang on until they die!. Simply buy small specimens of any of these plants--all are readily available in nurseries and plant shops. They are all plants that I have grown successfully in my own home for many years.--Eriastrum (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great – thanks to everybody for their suggestions! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia can be arranged in interesting ways, because you can just stick them on to a rock or something. Go visit them with a spray-bottle occasionally and they're happy. Even I have failed to kill a Yucca (Not for lack of trying :-o) They come back after a lot of neglect. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivorous plants? They do need some care with what they are watered with but my Venus Flytrap gave me amusement for some time until a cat decided to bite back.hotclaws 09:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia needs a lot of bright light and fairly high humidity; it will last quite a while, but it is slowly dying. Yucca is also very tough and will last a long time, but it needs very bright light to grow. All the carnivorous plants I know of are very tricky to grow, needing high humidity and just the right amount of water and light. Although they are frequently sold as novelties, they are very poor choices as house plants. Ask yourself, do I want a plant that will simply survive for a while? Or do I want a plant that will grow and be happy (if plants can be said to be "happy"!)?--Eriastrum (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a bonsai money tree? They don't require much light nor too much water. They look pretty neat too, and I think I paid $7-8 USD for a small one, which is within your price range. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

child custody laws

My great niece has been told by her Mother who is not her primary custodian, that she MUST come to stay with her for 2 mos this summer or she will have her Father thrown in jail. The child is 17 1/2 & gainfully employed & does not want to go stay with her Mom & stepfather (who hates her) & little sister who is spoiled. Can the Mom throw the Dad in jail if the 17 yr old girl refuses to go spend the entire summer out of state? Also, the Mom is behind on child support...does this factor in in any way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.39.118 (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's cause for the father to be jailed already (assuming that the police aren't yet aware of it), then the mother can opt to turn him in independent of the niece thing. Beyond that, though, this falls afoul of our "no legal advice" policy. These questions can be reliably answered only by a lawyer. — Lomn 12:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I guess would be if the father has repeatedly violated or helped his daughter violate a custody arrangement then it may be a jailable offence if he does so one more time (which may be the case if the daughter does not stay with the mother during the summer). Your niece may want to seek the help of a lawyer to look into some sort of emancipation or at least to change the current custody arrangement Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this always happen?

Does the toast really always fall buttered-side down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.239.42.255 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially it's because of the height people have tables. If you drop it from 2m or so, it should land butterside up. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at [9] [10] Think outside the box 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A science programme on British TV ran this expirement a couple of years ago. They found no evidence to support the claim. Their results showed random up and down results, the same as flipping a coin. (Don't people have better things to do?)86.200.130.105 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

Just blame it on Murphy. Or perhaps consider how memorable it is when the toast lands right-side-up; probably you'd just pick it up and go about your day without much thought. When bad things happen though, it seems our minds tend to flip into "Grr! Why, and how do I fix it?" mode. But that's just my take. --Prestidigitator (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question the premise of this question on the grounds that it is not a usual occurrence for toast to be free falling often enough for this to be a notable phenomenon. Moreover, it is even rarer for buttered toast to be falling, accepting for the time being that some toasters may expel the toasted bread from the cooking instrument at a sufficient force for it to become airborne. Therefor, I can only assume you are intentionally dropping the toast, once buttered, to prove this point - which in itself seems somewhat paradoxical. Plasticbounceman (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else thinking of Sheldon? Think outside the box 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. I've dropped buttered toast and it landed butter-side up. Vranak (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasticbounceman: Rather than being due to a faulty toaster (which don't usually take buttered toast}, the phenomenon is usually more due to the fact that someone has to do the dishes, load the dishwasher or owns only 2 plates (both of which still have yesterday's leftover pizza on it). So you butter the toast in your hand and as you reach the edge it usually flips and leaves your hand holding it. (Also contributing the momentum getting what used to be the top you were spreading stuff on to become the bottom that messes up the floor.) Quite a few people who eat toast engage in OR during their student years. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question made me think of the Buttered cat paradox. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Mythbusters declared it a myth or just inconclusive, but any buttered toast I've dropped (or cracker, for that matter) has landed butter down, with one exception only. My guess is the butter weights one side against the other as it falls from a reasonable (elbow) height, or the space allows for only one flip with no real thrust for a second turn. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is, of course, associated with the five-second rule, where most people think that toast which has been dropped on the floor is still edible if it's picked up within five seconds! -- Arwel (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume an equal chance of it landing either way. If it lands butter- (or jam-, or whatever sticky stuff you use) side down, it will stick, and you will find it thus. If, on the other hand, it lands dry-side down, or on an edge, it will bounce somewhat, and land again. If it lands butter-side down, it will stick, and you will find it thus. If, on the other hand, uh, how many times does it have to bounce before you realize that, eventually, it will end up stuck to the floor with the butter side down? The only way to avoid being stuck is if it randomly lands dry-side down so many times that it stops bouncing. -SandyJax (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British show, according to a book I've read (can't remember which one, but it was by Karl Kruszelnicki), made the methodological error of throwing the bread up in the air - not accurately reproducing the effect of accidentally nudging the toast off the table. Of course, it depends on whether you're testing the proposition "buttered toast when pushed off the table falls butter-side down" or "buttered toast has a natural tendency to fall butter-side down". Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason Mythbusters annoyed me, because they shot the toast through the air wildly with apparent disregard for the real reason why people note the experience. I hate to think how often "carpet" comes into the equation. :/ Julia Rossi (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with psych questions

I don't understand the wording of a couple of questions my psych teacher gave us and I'm not sure how to answer them. Here they are:

1) Describe the most common methods of studying perception and provide examples of each, including preferential looking, orienting response, habituation and dishabituation.

What am I supposed provide examples of? Perception or studying perception? Do I have to describe each of the perception terms or just the methods of studying them? Are there certain names for these methods or do I just describe how you can dangle a new toy in front of a baby and it will look at that instead of an old toy? Is "x is often tested by doing y" good enough to answer each of them?

2) Briefly describe the relationship between motor, perceptual, cognitive and social development.

Do I describe how they are all related or how each one is related to another? eg. "A, B, C, and D are all connected because they are all F" or "A is related to B because... C is related to D because..."? And how brief?

I know the material but I need to know how to answer these questions properly so she doesn't keep giving me half-marks and not explaining why! Please help. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is in the questions if you read carefully. DESCRIBE (give a detailed account of) the MOST COMMON methods (perhaps the five most used methods to STUDY perception (describe how perception is studied). She asks for examples of those you choose but insists that your choice must include the four she has specified. Briefly (concisely) describe how the four she gives are related (make or show a connection between). I am very sad that she won't explain. First and prime role of a teacher is to help students to learn. Best of luck.86.200.130.105 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)petitmichel[reply]

In order to show your teacher that you really try to get it right and are willing to put in the effort you could put in both versions, each heading with a sentences like you did here: Interpreting the question relate to overall relationship between A,B, and C. ... If we interpret the question to mean relationship between individual items .... That way you can be sure to get full marks or at least more sympathy from the teacher next time you ask an "I don't get this .." question. Going from experience such student questions are usually phrased in a way that take a lot of effort to figure out exactly what the problem is. Make your teacher feel it's worth giving you a little extra help. Saying something like "I seem to miss full marks because I fail to understand your questions. Could you help me with a method to figure out what the question is." Gets a heck of a better effect than "(I'm a dumbo)- I don't understand the questions." You could also swap something for a bit of help from the class star (there's always one). Feed him/her the occasional free pizza or game cheat or something in exchange for telling them what you think the question means and how to answer it. (The less time and effort the process takes the cheaper it'll come you.) Do forensics on past projects and see if you can figure out where you misunderstood and how you could have read it better. Good luck 71.236.23.111 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was there an assigned text or assigned readings for your course? I have done a fair amount of reading in psychology of perception, and this particular set of buzzwords seems to coexist only in texts from the last several years. A Google scholar search [11] particularly points to [12] shows particularly Emese Nagy and Peter Molnar's "Homo imitans or homo provocans? Human imprinting model of neonatal imitation" in Infant Behavior and Development, Volume 27, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 54-63, which you can find in most college libraries. If they have a good literature review, that could help you in creating a scholarly answer to the question. "Preferential looking" seems to be the most recent buzzword or experimental paradigm. It is fascinating. I have long known that neonates will often imitate gestures, such as sticking out one's tongue. These researchers have apparently made an experimental paradigm of such play. The infants will also provoke gestures from the adults, and the researchers have physiological measures related to imitation or provocation. Edison (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BFE

"Bumfuck, Egypt" is sometimes used to mean "the middle of nowhere", some remote human habitation. I would have sworn that there actually is a town in Egypt of that or a similar name, but I can't find it. Is it there, and, if not, why Egypt? --Milkbreath (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it said before that there was a place called "Bamfouk" in Egypt. There isn't. I guess it was chosen as Egypt, to Americans, is a faraway place of which they know little. Fribbler (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. here's a discussion on the topic. Fribbler (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Placeholder_name#Places. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lost fish -- I need a more plausible story!

I am in really big trouble and none of its my fault. I very kindly offered to look after my girlfriends fish whilst she went on holiday to Teneriffe with some of her friends from work, one of who is getting married soon to frankly a very boring bloke from Sales called Darren. We don't live together despite having been in a relationship for the past five and half years. To be honest the crux of our lack of commitment to a long term relationship, marriage and kids is due to her obsessive need to love her goldfish named Kenny after the late DJ and comedian Kenny Everett. When she's had a couple of pints of Merlot she insists on recounting the tale of how she won Kenny at a fair on the Downs just after the erstwhile entertainer passed away in 1995. Her deep held belief is that Kenny the Goldfish is the reincarnated soul of Mr Everett. Sadly after only two days of looking after every whim of the ageing fish he decided to move on to having a bit of a laugh with me after I had smoked a scoobie or two. Lying with barely a movement at the top of his tank - I thought he was a gonner. I thought perhaps the kiss of life would save the fish but the slippery little sod wriggled out of my hands when I got him out of the tank - and to cut a long story short exited the seventh floor flat via the window. Please send me some help as to a more plausible story of how the fish dissapeared - as I will be accused of murder and dumped and I love her and don't want to lose her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copy of a copy cat (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buy a new one, she will never know, and if she does and you get dumped, then a woman that loves her fish more than you is not the woman for you any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that you lost the dead fish. The fish dying on you, that's not a problem, that could happen to anyone. But dropping it out the window, well, that's the slapstick aspect you need to get away from. The answer, as I see it, is to produce a new dead fish, not a new live one, and to treat it in a matter of respect, rather than dropping it out the window. Getting a new live fish will invite a variety of potential problems based around a BIG lie, whereas getting a new dead fish is a much SMALLER lie, as you are only covering up the aspect of your story that is totally unacceptable and also, coincidentally, quite improbable. She might think something is, err, fishy, but she'll never suspect you got high and dropped him out of the window, because that's just absurd. Additionally, she will never believe the story as you tell it: she will think you killed the fish by dropping it out of the window. She will never believe that it was dead first and you took it out to perform CPR on it. So you can't go with the actual truth, as she will never believe it to be the truth anyway. So you might as well be a liar in a way that makes her feel better about this ridiculous situation. So, I advise...:

Buy a new one of similar size. Take it out of the tank and let it die. (Sad, I guess, but I don't consider goldfish to be very high on the chain of being.) Then put it in some sort of ornate box. When she gets back, explain that the fish died on your watch, and that you didn't want it to get all nasty and bloated and whatever in the water, so you put it in a suitable burial device. Then you two can go bury it in a matter she would find fitting. She'll think it is sweet, in the end, and she won't be able to tell one dried fish from another (they all look pretty similar in that state). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight, you are not satisfied with your own lie so you want someone to invent a lie for you. It's a f***ing fish for Christ's sake. Get over it, tell the truth and sleep in peace for evermore (maybe alone, but you're young!). 1 lie is the first step to a slippery slope. If a dead fish is all that stands between you and an ex-girlfriend you'll be well rid (and I don't mean the fish). Richard Avery (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about whether she likes the fish more than him. If she thinks he killed her fish in a crazy fashion it's about whether he's reliable, whether he's trustworthy, whether he's careful to understand what she appreciates. Think of it this way: if your spouse purposefully killed your pet, and you were upset by this, would it be because you loved the pet more than the spouse, or because what the killing of the pet symbolized? --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You got a phone number, telegram address, telegraph wire? Just give her a ring and tell her the fish died due to old age and would it be o.k. if you gave it a decent burial. Find a nice spot in a park or friend's (her?) back yard dedicated to piscine memory. (See if you can find a picture of Kenny to mark the spot or look around at "odds and ends" places for a little ceramic deco fish.) If she's going to be back tomorrow you may have to produce a dead fish for her to be present at the ceremony. Also buying a replacement would show you care for her feelings. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about it being a "fish". It's about him being trusted with something. And in the end, it will be about him lying, whether he lies or not. Maybe it will work if he claims he flushed it, but it sounds like she is emotionally attached to it and will want more closure than that. If you don't lie, you'll still be thought to be lying: she'll just think the fish was not already dead when you tried to do CPR on it and threw it out the window. To believe that you really thought you could bring a dead fish back to life and then accidentally dropped it out the window would be to assume you are a total moron—it'll be easier, I bet, for her just to assume you are lying and you killed her fish. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good day sir. Many people have given you good advice for lying. I do not particularly care for lies. Just tell her what happened. Maybe not the high part. That you got high. You could leave that out of the story. But tell her what happened. And if she dumps then she wasn't in love with you enough. A fish is a fish you can always get another. A relationship between two beings is a wonderful thing and if she loves that fish more then you she was never the right one. I prefer if you told her what happened instead of telling her a lie. Because that lie may hurt you in the end. I hope I have helped. I hope that what I have said may or may not reflect anything. I just appreciate if you took my words into consideration. Have a good day.Rem Nightfall (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall[reply]

Did you try looking for the dead fish beneath the window? It would help if you managed to produce the actual dead fish. (Maybe refrigerate or freeze it if she will be gone for a while.) It would show that you at least cared enough for her feelings to go look for the body. (Even if her feelings for the fish don't make much sense.) Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, never offer to babysit someone's children. Edison (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need a plausible story? Yeah, you do. Because frankly, the one you're telling here is pretty much completely ridiculous. The doobie notwithstanding, you thought the goldfish could have been saved with the kiss of life? What, were you going to take a mouthful of water, spray it at the fish's face and hope for the best? But -- oh no! -- the fish, whom your girlfriend, who drinks pints of Merlot, believes to be the reincarnation of Kenny Everett, escaped out of the window, and now she'll kill you? It's a funny story, but frankly, I have a lot of trouble believing it, unless you live in a sitcom. If you do, by all means, come up with some kind of a crazy and convoluted explanation or buy a new fish in the hopes of fooling her. Then you can enjoy the laugh track when she comes home and wonders out loud why Kenny's fins seem to have moved or how weird it is that Kenny is still alive, even though she forgot to mention that he's been ill and the vet didn't think he'd make it through the next few days. Or, alternatively, in the unlikely event that this really happened to you, you could just trust your girlfriend to realize that a 13-year-old goldfish wasn't going to live forever anyway, and that you really didn't mean to hurt it. (If she can't take that, it's okay, because I hear next week her mother's popping over for a visit, and unfortunately your girlfriend has been telling her that you're a chef, so she's going to expect a gourmet meal. So if you break up now, at least you won't have to ask a real chef to cook for her while you run in and out of the kitchen in a chef's hat and pretend to be the guy doing the cooking, prompting yet more laugh track action. Trust me, you're getting off easy here.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussions of whether the girlfriend's affections for the fish are absurd or not are off base. The fish was a favorite pet. Who cares if it is fish or a dog or a pet rock. The point is, she's going to be distraught when it is dead, especially if the death has circumstances that make it look like he killed the fish through negligence or accident. It doesn't have to be a fish; it could be a favorite piece of pottery. If he destroyed the cherished thing by being a fool, as appears to be the case, she's got every right to question whether he's a good mate, whether he is being truthful, etc. It has nothing to do with liking the fish more than the fellow. If a girlfriend of mine destroyed my laptop in a ridiculous manner, I would be plenty mad, not because I liked the laptop more than the girl. The problem as I see it, as I've said, is that the truthful story, assuming it is true (unlike Captain Disdain), is that it is totally unbelievable, so she's going to think he's lying anyway. So if you're going to be thought a liar by telling the truth, you might as well tell a smaller lie that will make everybody happier, as I see it. Maybe there's an intrinsic value to telling the truth but in that case it'll never be appreciated, so tell a more plausible lie, one that conveniently overlooks the fact that you desecrated the dead fish, but has all of the other aspects intact. Don't try to pass of a new, live fish, you've no idea whether she'll be able to tell or not. Get a new dead fish. Then just write the story around it. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that this has got well into debate status and I refer my learned friends to the guidelines. Richard Avery (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say the fish died so you buried/flushed it. If you want to make your frankly bonkers girlfriend feel a little better, get her a replacement pet (rabbit, dog, hamster, or whatever - something you like) and say the fish was reincarnated as this new pet and that's why you've named it "Kenny". Just a note of caution though: she might not believe you, dump you and you'll be stuck with the rabbit, dog, hamster, or whatever for the rest of it's life - and remember a pet's "not just for Christmas". Astronaut (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annals of Improbable Research, Ignoble awards

Hi

I would dearly like to see an entry for the word "cogno-intellectual". It is a fictitious word invented by the above people hoping it would spread and has, being treated seriously by others.

Regards

Martinmrt (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arse Numbing Seats

Is it just me or are the seats on buses becoming more and more like torture especially if you are on the bloody bus for a long time. I have noticed this over the last couple of weeks and this morning I got on the bus sat down and by the time I arrived at my destination it felt like I had been fucked up the arse. These bloody bus companies need to get those seats sorted out and put in some really nice soft comfortable seats.Legoastheelf (Talk | contribs)

Felt like you got fucked up the arse huh?, how do you know, have you been fucked up the arse? <193.115.175.247 (Talk)>

I wouldn't be surprised to learn it is done purposefully in an attempt to keep homeless individuals from hanging out on the buses, though that is just a guess. Buses and fast food places both seem to do that, though in the latter case it may be aimed at all customers. Probably saves having to pay for something that's been ergonomically designed as well. In other words, I personally wouldn't hold my breath, nor waste it complaining to deaf ears. --Prestidigitator (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't tell if it's "just you" without knowing which bus system you use, but here are three possible reasons why you may find bus seats less comfortable than you used to. (1) Due to budget problems, the bus company is buying cheaper seats. (2) Due to vandalism problems, the bus company is ordering seats that are harder for vandals to damage, or cheaper to repair. And (3) you are heavier than you used to be, and the seat doesn't have the necessary amount of padding for your present weight. --Anonymous, 00:01 UTC, May 30, 2008.

Good evening sir or madam. I understand what you mean. Actually I see a lot of dirty bus seats as well. Bus seats are hard and not very comfortable. It might be because if vandalism. Not sure why they aren't cleaned at least.I think some people notice because they might not live a rock bottom life. Now I'm not saying you may or may not live a rock bottom life, but I am sure its hard to live rock bottom. I can only imagine. Only buying at convenient stores and just trying to survive with the minimal wage. I'm sure anyone who lives a life like that doesn't care if the bus seats are hard or not.They don't care if the seats are dirty. Just as long as they have a means of getting home and getting were they need to. Now, I'm not just trying say poor people use the bus and buses are for poor people. No that isn't what I am saying. I am saying I notice most people on the bus don't have the life and the luxury we have. The kinda of life to complain about gas on cars, the kind of life to complain about hard seats on the bus. Now complaining isn't bad either. And I'm sorry I dragged this a little to long, but I'm trying to make a point. Or some of point. I hope I have helped. I hope I haven't said anything to offend anyone. I hope that my answers has helped. Have a wonderfully positively wonderful evening.Rem Nightfall (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall[reply]

Rem, there's generally no need to apologise for a lengthy paragraph. Brevity is not necessarily a virtue. If you think what you're just about to post is long-winded, then you have the option of rethinking and shortening your text before you post it, thus obviating the need for any apology - rather than compounding the problem by taking even more words to apologise for what you believe is already too long. That's from your frame of reference. However, if you do apologise for taking too long, your apology is somewhat undermined in the eyes of the readers if you then go on for 6 more sentences, particularly if they're unnecessary sentences. We operate on the assume good faith principle here, so that takes care of most problems of perceived offence. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinner seats on buses: harder to slash, take up less space; hard seats in cafes: moves customers through more quickly, saves the waiter asking if you want more coffee. Is there a trend towards profanity happening here on the desks? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution

Does holding a handkerchief over your nose actually help reduce the amount of toxic fumes you inhale on the streets?? Aanusha Ghosh (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent. A handkerchief can help filter particulate matter above a certain size, though many fumes and such will still pass through. — Lomn 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wet the hanky you can also catch a few of the chemicals that would otherwise react with the water of your Mucous membranes. For instance they could form acids that will then eat into tissue. Much better to have acid eat your handkerchief instead. The effect is going to be short lived and not highly effective, though. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will dampening handkerchief with water make any difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.237.147 (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It will prevent you from breathing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're a fish. Is that how you can give mouth to mouth to a fish?Snorgle (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual style of Dorling Kindersley books

Is there a good term for the visual style used in most Dorling Kindersley books? Specifically, I'm looking for a way to describe how the photographed objects are always contrasted against plain white backgrounds. Is there a specific term for that technique? See here, for example. Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In graphic design, the "cutting out" of part of an image to remove the background, and show only the object of interest, is called silhouetting. Is that what you're referring to? Deor (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with a number of designers, some of them at Dorling Kindersley, or DK, and they generally call it "DK style". I don't think that this is a recognized term, just a reference to a well-known style that is emblematic of that publisher. Marco polo (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK silhouetting is a related but opposing process (ie. it hides the selected material rather than hiding the background), the DK books are using masking. I'm surprised that wiki doesn't have articles on these, but maybe this is UK terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.106.125 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "masking" seems to be the word I was looking for. Thanks, everyone! Zagalejo^^^ 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions, questions

Why do people find it hard to accept that other people will shoot at Bigfoot, UFOs, aliens, even at ghosts (Seen one matter on Discovery Channel's A Haunting in which someone used a .45 on a ghost)? I've read the articles on each, even the "talk" pages. I've been with people who will actually shoot at strange things.
Can a "IP's Corner" be set up (Other than the Sandbox, which is filthy by the way), so that IPs can create articles ? 65.173.105.197 (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a "Monster Quest" matter in which someone had tried to shoot at a Bigfoot, and I do NOT mean with a camera. The guy allegedly caught a Bigfoot in a dumpster and shot at it with what looked like a .45 ACP. IF that was some idiot in a costume, he/she would be DEAD. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Q2, someone else asked about why IPs cannot create articles. 65.173.105.197 (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2 may be partially addressed by WP:RA. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best fix for question two is to create an account. However, if you have something you really need to get written down in Wikipedia format temporarily, you do have your talk page. Not really a solution, but a workaround. Useight (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create articles, create an account. It's as simple as that. It's not a very onerous requirement. It will be less effort, in the end, to just create an account than it will be to whine about how you'd like to create articles. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that people that live in places where guns aren't regularly used would find it difficult to understand the mindset of other people who are so used to shooting weapons that they'll fire at random things without checking what they are first. Snorgle (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC was created for the express purpose of letting IPs provide the text of an article to create. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 05:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hand to Balls Ratio - Contact Juggling

I'm starting up on contact juggling and was wondering if there was a good ratio from hand size to ball size, I have small hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.102.55 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~And I have small balls. Let's meet!,~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.139.85 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the immature users, I would say a good ball size would be one that you can fit two of the balls in your hand at the same time comfortably, as you need to in juggling. Atyndall93 | talk 00:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your response, while not immature, leads me to believe that you misunderstand what contact juggling is. It's not normally done, at least starting out, with more than one ball. The most popular example of contact juggling would be from the movie Labyrinth where David Bowie's character juggles a crystal ball. But back to the original question... You want a ball that is heavy enough that it won't fly off your hand while doing the juggling, especially when flipping from the palm/fingers to the back of your hand/fingers. The ball that I have is a bit bigger than a baseball but not as large as a softball. I have, from what I've been told, long fingers and I find this very comfortable for contact juggling. I think this size should work well for you, though I've never known any other contact jugglers in person so this is just a original research guess of mine. In my opinion, you want a ball that is not too large but also not too small. Also, it will be easier to learn with a larger ball and then get smaller with experience. Dismas|^(talk) 01:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to do palmspinning, you'll need to be able to fit three balls in your palm, and still be able to move them in a circle (if only clumsily at first). I'd say get the biggest balls you can, given that constraint. --Allen (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GWB parting shot.

Given that the American people seem bent on "change" (because they can) at the forthcoming Presidential election, which presumably means change from a Republican leadership to a Democrat(ic) one; and further given the rumour-mongering that GWB is planning a last-minute (of his own Presidency) attack on Iran so as to win favour with the Saudi Arabian government and so obtain vast puddles of lower cost oil in return, would it be likely that his proposal to carry out such an attack (which he also supposes would win support and a decisive victory for John McCain) would win a vote of support in Congress, given the apparent war-weariness of the American people? A lot of givens I know, but as a UK observer, t'would be nice to have your views. Thanks. 92.0.97.156 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems extremely unlikely that the current US Congress would support a new war with Iran unless the provocation was direct (I think people have tired of the doctrine of "preemptive strike", given how the Iraq threat proved to be fairly nonexistent). Even the Republicans in Congress are now saying that it was a bad idea to get into the war; the military would certainly not support it, as they know exactly how stretched thin they are and how taken for granted they are. All in all it would be a pretty hard sell. Americans are also not too fond of "October Surprises" of that sort, and given that GWB is by far the least-liked President in living memory, I doubt people would be terribly sold on something just because he started it or urged it. But again, this is speculation. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would he attack with, considering the U.S. army is stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Force and the Navy are pretty rested. Aren't there still two carrier groups in the Gulf, just sitting there hoping Iran will attack them? Corvus cornix_talk 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Force and the Navy can't win a war. They can reduce Iran to rubble, but without troops on the ground, you can't hold territory or force Iran to do anything. --Carnildo (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel This

Good evening gents and ladies. I was intrigued by a curious thought. What is the worse pain? Emotional pain or physical pain? Thank you for taking your time to answer this question I appreciate it. Have a positively wonderful evening. I hope this question is fine to ask.Rem Nightfall (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall[reply]

How about: whichever one you are experiencing at that very moment? --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might differ by person. Some individuals would endure torture to the point of death to avoid the emotional pain of betraying their fellows , their God, or their country. Others would find the emotional pain to be more bearable than the physical pain in the same situation. Edison (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boredom. Mind-numbing eternal boredom.--droptone (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Droptone: Sometimes. Captain Ref yes, in some cases that is true. But other times that isn't true. Or at least the right kinda of question. There are times when you feel emotional and physical pain at the same time. Then what happens. Which one overcome the other? Which pain reaches you? Which pain will be felt for a long long long time? Even if its just a slap across the cheek, a twisted ankle, and you are being verbally abuse at the same time. Which overcomes the other? And I'm talking about the brain aspect not necessarily what someone is feeling at that moment. I'm sorry this question really does seem inappropriate for the ref desk. At least to me. I'm sorry if it does seem that way to anyone else as well.Rem Nightfall (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall[reply]

Hi Rem. There is an article on physical pain which deals with some of the biological reactions. There is also some stuff on suffering (emotional pain) which has a short section on neurological aspects.

It would require a neurologist to answer you question. It may not even be possible to compare subjective mental processes, as individuals seem to react differently to the entire spectrum of sensations. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4.0 on the Schmidt Sting Pain Index: "Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like fire-walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch rusty nail in your heel." Cluster headaches and trigeminal neuralgia are also contenders for "worst pain", apparently. --Sean 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different Youtube players?

Why does Youtube seem to have two different players? One had play/pause and restart, while the other one was rounder and only had play/pause. But it looks like they've updated the viewer's looks today. 24.6.46.92 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've got a new player that was in beta until recently (i.e. in the last few days). Perhaps you somehow caught it in transition? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they fixed it. Every time I backed up a page using the pre-install beta version, it crashed my browser. Corvus cornix_talk 19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even before the transition, I could see 2 different kinds. 24.6.46.92 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube partner videos (i.e., those where the account holder gets a split of the advertising income for the page) got the beta version earlier than others. In fact, partner accounts still appear to be using this beta version, which is slightly more rounded and has different icons: compare the official YouTube version of this video (a partner video) to the unofficial, non-partner version. Laïka 11:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Oil Industry

Would there be any benefit to the U.S. if we nationalized the Oil Industry. Would there be negitive or positive effects on the industry, or no difference at all? Hypothetically, do you think this would lower oil prices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.145.177 (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would never happen. The U.S. is the capitalist nation, and would not nationalize any industries. --Nricardo (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked if it would happen....I asked would there be a benefit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.145.177 (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see too many positive effects that could come out of it. Oil is on is way out; the US would waste lots of money on something that simply won't make a profit 5-10 years from now. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would epxect that it would have negative effects on the industry. The industry is already hugely political, with constant influence/pressure from the political world, making the industry nationalised would, in my eyes, only make it more likely that oil be used a political tool. That could range from things as cynical as reducing the cost of oil in the lead up to election (although reducing tax on fuel in this manner is currently popular in some countries) or could be using oil-exports as a carrot (or stick) for other countries. I expect it would have an effect on the global market for oil too. The 'benefit' could be that you could argue you would be able to increase fuel-supply security, it would increase tax-revenue (it's a profitable industry any profit made by government ran business is effectively a tax), it could improve stability of resource management, and it could allow bigger bargaining power on the world stage. I don't believe they are strong arguments and doubtlessly they are flawed but my instant reaction to the question is that those would be the sort of thing that could be touted as a 'benefit' to a nationalised oil industry. To be fair though the rest of the world is generally following the much simpler policy of: privatise and provide entry for the poor. The two most required things in society are privatised virtually the world over (food and water), and of those food has (to my knowledge) never been a wholly nationalised industry (dairy production was government owned in Britain in the 70s). Government just needs to ensure that the poor/unable are given the necessary means to be able to utilize resources that are vital to their survival/wellbeing. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]