Miscellaneous desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

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.

November 23

Chicken petting

Do chickens enjoy being petted by humans in the same way that cats and dogs do? If not, why not? Acceptable (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mother said she had a pet chicken who would always run to her to be petted, so the notion is quite plausible. Other birds, such as parrots and budgies, have been documented to interact with humans, as well. Edison (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but except for Edison's mom's chicken, speaking in general terms, chickens do not exactly crave human contact the way dogs and (to a lesser extent, cats) do. Darkspots (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a collection of original and non-scientific "research", but this forum of chicken owners seems to think that chickens like being petted, one theory being that they like the warmth. Apparently "petting chickens online has big possibilities" too. The chickens wear a haptic jacket mirroring your touch as you pet a cybernetic doll, replicating the chicken's movements. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few of my chickens have liked being petted. The more friendly ones were easier to catch as they matured and eventually got to like it. Dismas|^(talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give us a percentage, here, Dismas, if you don't mind. How many chickens did you have? How many of them liked being petted? Would they let strangers pet them? Even patient strangers with food? Darkspots (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll pull what I can from my original research filing cabinet. :) We started a few years ago with 12 birds. My wife was always picking them up as chicks and so on as they grew. There were maybe 2-3 that were kind of skiddish and weren't too cool with being picked up when they were fully grown. Most would come up to us though and about 50-75% of the time would squat when they saw you reaching for them. They do this thing where they kind of lower their bodies and put out their wings slightly. They'll just stay in that position until you pick them up or move away. As far as strangers goes, it was a little hit or miss. When the neighbor kids came over with their mother, they weren't crazy about the number of people (theorizing here). But when just one or two people came over, they'd come closer. The flock was the biggest when we had ~30 hens. Due to predators, raising birds, and buying birds, this number fluctuated. Those that we raised we could more easily catch or just pick up when they came to us. There were 25 of those. And the "pick-upable" were somewhere around 50-60%. The full grown hens that we got from a local "free range" farm were much more skiddish due in large part to the fact that they didn't really get any human contact other than feeding times. And they weren't actually handled during those times. It was after all a family owned, though commercial, farm. We're now down to six hens and our first rooster. The rooster doesn't go for the "chicken hugs" as my wife calls it. But a couple of the hens like the attention. And yes, during all of this, having food increased your chances of giving a hug. Tomatos = chicken crack while celery is not well thought of. Dismas|^(talk) 11:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dismas, ever thought of becoming a chicken whisperer? Rockpocket 08:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You joke but my wife already calls me "the cat whisperer". We sometimes visit an animal shelter that she used to volunteer at and they have a cat who hates everyone. Everyone but me that is. The cat normally doesn't allow anyone to pet her for more than 3 pets. After that, she attacks them. On my first visit there, I pet the cat for ten minutes straight and was never attacked. :) Dismas|^(talk) 08:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a budgie who cocked his head to one side to let me scratch his neck; apparantly very tame budgies can enjoy this. My current birds won't let me do that but one of them will run up to me and perch on my hand if I hold my hand out to him. It seems that birds are normally wary of humans but if they are tamed then they can enjoy human petting just like dogs or cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.96.244 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that friendliness or shyness of the birds varies, which is why my mother noted the one pet out of all the others. In a traditional farmyard, a human would come out and feed them, so they might be conditioned to approach humans, or they might have imprinted on humans after hatching, if they were raised in an incubator and later under a heat lamp, without mama hen. Edison (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League season tickets

I'm curious as to how much money a fan of a Premier League team has to lay out each year for season tickets. I figure one has to be a member of a supporters' club to qualify for season tickets, at least for the top-flight teams, and I would like to know if there is an average buy-in fee among the 20 Premier League teams. I'm asking this because, after nearly two decades, I'm getting somewhat closer to being eligible for New York Giants tickets and, thanks to having a new stadium, am being told that the initial buy-in will be in the six figures, including what is called a "personal seat license." There's absolutely no way I, or anyone else I know, can afford that. Are fans in the U.K., or perhaps Spain, Italy or Germany subject to this? Are average fans being forced out of seeing their teams play in person because they simply can't afford that kind of outlay? Thanks for any and all responses. 98.235.67.132 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The average for mid-range seating in the Premiership in the current season (2008-09) is £590. This entitles the holder to attend all home matches and receive preferential treatment and discounts when purchasing tickets to away matches and also gives them preferential treatment for cup matches. Some teams such as Manchester United force season ticket holders to purchase tickets to home cup games as part of the terms and conditions of holding one. Each club sets their own prices for seating in different parts of the stadium and there is generally no 'buy-in', season ticket sales operate on a first-come-first-serve basis (except for Arsenal who have a waiting list for non-club members). As an example of prices, West Bromwich Albion season tickets for the current season were on sale from £349 to £449, Manchester United tickets were from £494 to £912 and Everton sold for between £502 and £603. The only similarity I can recall to this 'buy-in' scheme is that of Club Wembley where you can buy a seat for ten years in the stadium and watch all games/events for a one-off payment of between £1,700 and £20,000. Nanonic (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response, Nanonic. I'm guessing that that £590-per-year, translating to about $1,200, is for one seat. In most American stadiums, you have to buy in blocks from two to four seats. $1,200 a year for a single seat is a bargain, in my book. I have to add that once you pay the personal seat license, the right to buy the season tickets is yours for life and can be handed down from generation to generation. That's why the wait for season tickets is so long for some teams, such as the Giants. This is the fist time, though, that ticket holders have to pay the personal license fee, and many can't afford that. Most tickets, I suspect, will go to corporate buyers. It's sad. With that kind of outlay, I can tell my family it's cheaper to buy season tickets to Emirates Stadium!. I don't have a question anymore, so I don't want to be accused of using this as a message board, so I'm off. Again, thanks for the information.98.235.67.132 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see I've gone and messed up the formatting of my response to Nanonic. Trying fix. Sorry. 98.235.67.132 (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, 98.235, the premise of your question seems to be incorrect. According to this:

Mara said the team was still working out the prices for licenses between $1,000 and $20,000. But he said only 5,000 licenses would sell for $20,000 — half of them club seats — and that 90 percent of the licenses in the upper bowl of the $1.6 billion stadium would sell for $1,000 each.

Executive boxes at Premiership stadiums are similarly far more expensive than regular fans' seats. jnestorius^(talk) 14:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory proved to be true

Has there ever been a case where a widepsread conspiracy theory has proved to be correct? 58.161.194.134 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. What about the Watergate scandal?Lova Falk (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there were wide-spread conspiracy theorists talking about Watergate before it 'came out'? Whilst Watergate included people conspiring, I wouldn't think of it as an instant of proving conspiracy theorists correct, but my history-knowledge ain't that great. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Watergate is not an answer at all. There is the assassination of JFK, I suppose. Whether there was a conspiracy to assassinate him, rather than Oswald acting alone, has never been proven correct; but most commentators now accept that Oswald was not acting alone. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but the conspiracy theories usually involve Oswald working with part of the state (CIA, FBI, whatever, I'm not an expert on the theories), do most commentators believe that part? --Tango (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. Take your pick from Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which theory are you claiming "most commentators" believe? --Tango (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the custodians of Lee Harvey Oswald are to be believed, only loonies (that includes me, apparently) believe he wasn't acting alone. See this discussion and this one. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching a documentary on the History or the Discovery Channel a couple months ago and they were quite admiment that Oswald acted alone. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite common for people to bolster their theories by saying things like "Most/all serious/educated commentators agree with me". Even if that were true, which in many cases it's simply not, it doesn't mean that alternative theories don't have validity or that they won't one day be proven correct. The history of the world is full of examples of "crazy" people who bucked the trend and were later proven to be the only ones on the right track. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above: most commentators now accept that Oswald was not acting alone. Very likely they do. For how else would they still manage to commentate? Hard for people to get much commentary out of "Oswald did it alone", or anyway hard to get much money for this commentary, or hard to generate much enthusiasm for no-there-wasn't-a-conspiracy websites. The question to ask would be of the number not of commentators or of monomaniacs but of unquestionably qualified historians who believe that there was a conspiracy. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust. jnestorius^(talk) 14:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust doesn't count I don't think because a conspiracy theory needs to be something widely denied from all quarters (and per this question, then proved correct). The Holocaust was and is a historical fact that some idiots deny and continue to deny, so it was never a conspiracy theory later proved correct. Holy crap, wait, you don't mean that the Holocaust is a conspiracy theory, and it has been proved that it never happened do you?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jnestorius is referring to the period of WWII when it was not at all clear that the Holocaust was happening. I believe there was a period when thinking Germany was systematically wiping out Jews and other undesirables was a pretty far-out position. Algebraist 16:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. jnestorius^(talk) 07:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. I'm sure it wasn't ambiguous to someone familiar with you, but not knowing you it could have been otherwise. Sorry for raising the specter.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ECHELON? -Arch dude (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy to claim Iraq had WMD ? Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice were the primary instigators, with Colin Powell, many analysts from the CIA (who were intimidated by Cheney), most members of the US Congress, the American public, and US allies being the dupes. This was one of the most successful conspiracies (from the POV of the instigators), leading to the war in Iraq, and no-bid contracts for Cheney's company, Halliburton. Cheney should be able to cash in with a lucrative job offer from Haliburton as soon as he leaves office. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers stations? -Fribbler (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American CIA rendition centres in foreign countries, perhaps? Steewi (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA drug trafficking? Although there's no evidence it was deliberately used to try and kill of the black race, as some people have repeatedly claimed. There's evidence coming to light about Russian history: e.g. that the 1930s famine in Ukraine was deliberately caused by Stalin[1], which had been alleged for a long time by anti-communists. A small-scale conspiracy theory was around the existence and extent of the Cambridge Spy Ring, whose members were gradually revealed over decades after much rumour. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another small one was that the Communist Party of Great Britain was partly funded by the Soviet Union. It was widely alleged, by people with no real evidence, believed by almost all CPGB members to be false, but was actually true (from the 1950s to the 1970s, at least). Warofdreams talk 12:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate was downplayed as a "two-bit burglary" where "the thieves didn't even take any money" by Nixon's defenders early on, who argued there was no justification for a special prosecutor or any congressional investigation. In reality, there was quite a coverup conspiracy, and there had been a conspiracy to have the "plumbers' work against Nixon's perceived enemies list even before the Watergate burglars were captured. So yes, Watergate was a conspiracy which was unmasked over time, and the biggest Presidential scandal since Teapot Dome. Edison (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreyfus Affair may also work as an example. At first, only a small minority in France believed Dreyfus was innocent of treason charges, but they had no proof - i.e. it was a typical conspiracy theory. However, as the contrversy raged, it came to public light that 1) the original jury condemning Dreyfus had received secret instructions damning to Dreyfus that were never shown to the defense; 2) that a number of fake documents were created by French intelligence officials to bolster the very flimsy case against Dreyfus; and 3) that evidence against a more likely culprit, Esterhazy, had been disregarded by investigators. 1,2 and 3 are typical of allegations found in conspiracy theories, but they all proved to be true. --Xuxl (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Mafia? A secretive multinational organization with ties to big business and politics, secret initiation rituals and a rather shady past - I think it is actually pretty close to what conspiracy nuts usually tell about the Illuminati, the Templars or whatever...yet before the McClellan Hearings, nobody was sure it even existed, let alone how powerful it was. -- Ferkelparade π 16:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-Z at Glastonbury

Who was Djing for Jay-Z at Glastonbury? Thanks 86.7.238.145 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there was a DJ? I've found a few forum posts about Jay-Z's backing band[2][[3] at glastonbury but little to nothing about DJs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a band, but from listening to the gig a few times it seems that there was certainly someone doing at least a tiny bit of DJing, because loads of vocals and beat snippets were being played. It might have just been a sound technician I guess. 86.7.238.145 (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call this statistics concept?

Imagine a country with a population of ten million. You want to gauge their opinions on a specific issue. Of course, you cannot ask all ten million people, so you conduct a survey of a hundred people, randomly chosen to avoid sampling bias. What is the probability that the opinions of the hundred people will accurately represent the opinions of all the ten million people in the country? What if you survey only ten people? What if you survey a thousand people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling error. --Tango (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or more generally, Sampling (statistics). It has been a major area of research in statistics for some time now. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the probability of a sample being exactly representative of a population is exactly zero. When the size of the population divided by the size of the sample yields an integer (a round number) there is a terribly small chance of a sample being exactly representative. So instead, statisticians build 'confidence intervals'. They do this by exploiting the fact that the average mean value of a sample (or the 'mean of the sample means') of all possible combinations of samples will be normally distributed with a mean exactly equal to the population mean. Any one sample might yield a result higher or lower than the population mean, but, by mathematical definition (they force you to derive these definitions in several econometric classes... sigh) the best 'expected value' for any given sample mean is the (unknown) population mean. This is called unbiasedness.

So if a statistician knows that the average of all of the possible sample means is the population mean, they just need to know the variance of all of the possible sample means to have a complete 'model' of all possible sample means. This is true because a normal distribution is fully characterized by it's mean and variance. Luckly, the sample variance(again, by mathematical definition) is function of the data and sample size and can be calculated directly.

So with this complete model, you won't be able to determine whether your sample mean is accurate, but you can create a cumulative probability distribution function of all possible sample means (it's just a normal distribution). By arbitrarily choosing a 'acceptable likelihood that you'll be wrong' (or an 'alpha', usually like 5% or 10%) you can use this function to determine what range the true value for the population mean is likely to fall into (this is the confidence interval) with (1-alpha) confidence. That's why polls always say something like +/- 3% (the confidence interval) 19/20 times (which means 95% or (100% - 5%)). I better get an A on my econometrics final...NByz (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Air Force One and Air Force Two have embassy status ?

That is, when they fly to other countries, do they have the legal right to keep local officials from snooping ? StuRat (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are designated military aircraft nes pas? If so, then this says: "Military aircraft, similar to warships, have sovereign immunity from foreign laws in relation to search and inspection.". Fribbler (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're military planes (the "air force" part of the name is a hint); whatever military plane the president is on has the radio call sign Air Force One. The planes most often used are maintained by the 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Suitland, Maryland, in the Washington DC suburbs. --- OtherDave (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I believe it's any USAF aircraft will use the callsign "Air Force One", not any military plane. FiggyBee (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks all. StuRat (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

How do I remove hair shampoo from my carpet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirafaye (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wipe it off with a towel. From experience, it doesn't stain. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tough part about shampoo and other concentrated soaps is that they are happy to foam and foam and foam and take a huge amount of effort to clean up. But keep at it. I spilled some handsoap in the trunk of a car once and was amazed that it took ages and ages to get most of it out. I imagine shampoo will not be as difficult, though, as it is less concentrated. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salted water - no stain - no foam.92.8.26.216 (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salt water most definitely leaves a white stain. StuRat (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you rent a carpet shampooer, and clean your whole carpet while you're at it ? That will avoid the problem of the one clean spot that makes the rest look filthy. One problem with carpet shampooers is that they leave the carpet wet long enough for it to mildew. In the summer you can open the windows, but this might be a problem in winter. Adding some bleach to the solution may prevent this, but then you'll need to evacuate the house (including pets) to prevent lung damage. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salted water would be different from the concentrations of salt water. There's a table at brackish water. So, just enough salt to knock out the foam, Julia Rossi (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that salt isn't going to evaporate, and a very small amount of salt can still leave a stain. StuRat (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try moping most of it up with a used dryer sheet and use sponge slightly moistened with a very highly diluted solution of Fabric softener to get more off (fabric softener will inhibit foaming). Then rent a steam vac (carpet steamer/ steamer extractor - we really don't have a page?!?) and fill the same diluted softener solution in the machine instead of water. Watch out some companies will rent you a shampoo machine, claiming it's a steam vac. A carpet cleaned with a steam vac doesn't get that wet and takes a fraction of the time to dry. Make sure to rinse the machine thoroughly before you return it, so you won't get into any trouble. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Julia for clarifying my earler suggestion of salt water - as challenged by StuRat. But he doesn't like using salt on his drive either when it is iced up as it might damage his lawn. I think he has a problem with salt. Probably doesn't drink Tequila either for the same reason. Everything in moderation Stu :-) 92.22.179.74 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salt on the roads or on your driveway is a really great way to ensure that you'll be buying lots of replacement cars over your lifetime! The salty water rusts out the metal in your car amazingly quickly. The last 20 feet you drive up your driveway at night splatters the underside with salty water that's going to stay there until the following morning (at least). Worse still - if you put your car in the garage overnight - it'll be WARM salty water - which is even worse! SteveBaker (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but where I live (Calgary, Alberta) they still regularly salt some roads and especially sidewalks. It beats slick ice. TastyCakes (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that we poor mortals that live in the northern wastes of Calgary and Scotland could forego the corrosive effects of salt on our roads (that we may drive without skidding into a group of schoolkids on their way to school - God forbid) - and enjoy the balmy heat of Texas instead!!!92.8.199.72 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm "Balmy: (1) soothing or fragrant (2) mild and pleasant"...110 degF (43C) in the shade is neither soothing, fragrant, mild or pleasant. But our cars do last a lot longer! SteveBaker (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those in Canada, at least, global warming will come to the rescue. Perhaps the Scots won't benefit, though, as the Gulf Stream may stop as a result of GW. So, Jack Frost may continue to nip up those kilts for the forseeable future. StuRat (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario license plates

What letters and letter sequences are unused in Ministry-assigned license plates in Ontario? Are they available for personalized plates? Neon Merlin 19:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some stuff, these are yours to discover: [4] and google[5]. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try also The MTO website. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum of Solace

At the end of Quantum of Solace, M tells Bond that Dominic Greene was found dead in the desert, with motor oil in his stomach. How toxic exactly is motor oil? In other words, how much of it did Greene have to drink for it to be fatal?

Also, did the pretty waitress the general tied up and gagged in the La Perla de las Dunas survive the fire? =) JIP | Talk 19:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Strifeblade (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Greene was found with motor oil in his stomach and two bullets in his head. Looks like his friends caught up with him. Algebraist 19:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still the open question of whether the motor oil ingestion alone would have been sufficient to kill Greene before he was shot, though. JIP | Talk 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not highly toxic per [6] Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The implication in the film was that, having been left in the desert, Greene would become so delusional with thirst that he would eventually resort to drinking the motor oil. Hence, the toxicity of the motor oil would be pretty irrelevant given how he was going to be close to death from dehydration by that point. So perhaps even the bullets were irrelevant... ~ mazca ^t|c 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The waitress survived the fire and lived a long, long life afterwards. She married a nice man and had three kids and a successful career. In the end, her incident with the General required a few years of counseling, but in the end she made peace with it. Hooray. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, that was the official story. In truth she was horribly scarred and the treatment (bizarrely) resulted in her acquiring a Russian accent. In a fit of revenge, she begged, stole and cheated her way into a $100 million fortune and blew it all on a massive underwater lair with several hundred loyal henchmen and one white persian cat...oh - and some kind of doomsday machine. The kind with just one single design flaw - that shooting a harpoon gun into the monitor on the main operations console would cause a chain reaction resulting in a 10 megatonne nuclear explosion about 15 minutes later. SteveBaker (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, speaking of which, what's wrong with my computers? When I ask them to compute π to the last digit, or tell them that I'm lying to them, or tell them to fulfill their function, they never blow up. --Trovatore (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about the tone of voice, you have to convince them to really try. Otherwise they just either give an error message and give up or get just get stuck in an infinite loop. --Tango (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main ingredient in motor oil isn't too toxic (although I'd expect some major diarrhea from drinking a quart of any oil). However, some of the additives could be quite toxic. Used motor oil would be even more toxic, as all sorts of metals from the engine and fuel additives would have contaminated it. StuRat (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, forcing someone to drink engine oil happened in The Fast and the Furious (the 2001 version - not the original)...I don't recall what happened to the victim in that case...but of course "it's FICTION!" applies here - so anything is possible. SteveBaker (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marky Mark was forced to drink crude oil in Three Kings, but it didn't seem to be too much of an inconvenience (but neither did the bullet wound to the lung...) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Purpose of having him drink motor oil was partially a revenge move for Bond, as Greene killed the British woman he slept with by drowning her with motor oil. It was more of just a cool way to kill the bad guy and/or make his death even more painful that it would have been from dying of dehydration... or a gunshot to the back of the head.Strifeblade (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking cafe au lait

Do the French still use bowls to drink café au lait, or has the handled cup take over completely? People who haven't been there for awhile insist it's the bowl (and croissant) but the article is more about the varities of milk coffee around the world without going much into the custom. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe bowls are still used in some homes, but every café I've been to served coffee in cups (I lived in France 2000-02 and drank a lot of coffee). Astronaut (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a lot of time in France (my wife is French) - generally, the habit of using bowls is restricted to hot chocolate - at breakfast. The bowl makes dunking your croissant (or a petit pain au chocolate...mmmmm!) a lot easier. I have seen it done with coffee too (black or with milk) - but to a much lesser degree. Certainly the practice seems 100% limited to breakfast...you wouldn't see it at any other time. I should say that this could be a regional thing too - I've spent most of my time there in Northern France. SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful answers. Breakfast mainly then, cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First known history of man raking leaves

When and where was the first known record of man raking leaves? And why was this tradition started?Joannedickinson (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably prehistoric. It's not really a tradition, it's just a chore that has to be done - if you don't remove the leaves they get wet and mouldy and slippery and generally horrible. --Tango (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you'd call it raking, but removal of leaves from some crops might be important so the crops get enough sunlight to ripen, before the coming frost kills them. This would only be an issue with small-scale farming, as large-scale farming typically involves the removal of any trees from farmland. It would also only be an issue with small, low to the ground plants, like berry bushes and veggies. StuRat (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't the kind of thing that history records. It's really unlikely that the next door neighbour of the first person to ever do this was inspired to write about it in such beautiful flowing prose that history would have preserved the fact for future generations. So we're down to guessing.

I don't really think people would be raking them off crops - only very low-growing crops would be affected, and those kinds of things just don't grow naturally in the fall. That leaves us with grass - but the only reason to 'farm' grass is to feed animals - who will have evolved to rummage under the leaves. I suspect the tradition of growing decorative lawns would be the first significant occasion - our article on lawns suggests the 1600's as the start of lawn-growing. It's also evident that before the invention of lawn mowers, lawns were either maintained by huge numbers of gardeners...(who might indeed be set to raking the damned thing in the fall when it stops growing and they have nothing else to do with their time)...or by animals...in which case, no raking. SteveBaker (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Joanne was asking about the first known record, the question should be answerable. Certainly there is no record of the first ever raking of leaves, but if the first raking was recorded in 1948, then that is the answer. (I have no idea what the actual answer is but I'm guessing there is some very obscure ancient or medieval record to be found somewhere!) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German wikipedia says that the rake was developed in Roman times to rake hay and the one that is used to rake up leaves was developed later. Thus the first man to rake leaves would have done so after that time. If you don't take the process literally then I guess the first one to remove leaves was s.o. who cleared them away from a burrow to catch the animal inside. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...which would put it back before humans evolved from proto-humans. Hence the first man to do this might well also be the first man. But that's not recorded - so it doesn't help very much! SteveBaker (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must have been the first, but this is surely in the same class of non-recorded events as the first human to scratch their backside or pick their nose. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]