Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 28

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.

October 28

Which African country recently implemented price controls in an attempt to control inflation?

Which African country recently implemented price controls in an attempt to control inflation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that its the same one your teacher told you about in class... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This could be a quiz rather than homework. --Tango (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Start with our article on inflation and see if you can find your way to the answer. I can do it in 2 clicks. --Tango (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work, incidentally - it just temporarily moves the burden from consumers to shopkeepers, who, having sold their stock at a loss, let their shops sit empty. FiggyBee (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe ftw! NByz (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't usually give the answer to questions like this... --Tango (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you would have to implement price controls on the suppliers as well, all the way down the chain. You can only do that if you control the entire chain, which means no imports. If your economy has any imports, then price controls won't work. --Tango (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who had been following the news anytime in the last year would probably have at least been able to *guess* Zimbabwe, simply because their inflation has been running a at a ridiculous pace for a long while. I mean, the American news media has to be covering something beside the election, don't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.221 (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While we don't know if this person is American, I agree; *think* a little. World events are important so you can learn what does and doesn't work when you vote or run the country someday. I mean, even the classic comic strip about the teen culture today, Zits, has the students having to know stuff like that and actually following some world events. (Though jeremy is likely to have learned about it on YouTube. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't know whether he's American, but given that he's posting from Scotland, my guess would be probably no. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Company Credit Card

Section removed; We really can't give advice on things like this. You'll need to speak to an accountant or a lawyer. FiggyBee (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can't give advice then say you can't give advice. Don't remove the question.. 71.176.156.86 (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually - the official guidelines for the reference desk says: "Questions that ask for medical, legal or other professional advice may be removed and replaced with a message...". So yes, we DO remove inappropriate questions. We do this because it has been clear that doing so tends to cut off exactly this kind of annoying debate and is reasonably effective in preventing people from answering the question in contravention of our clearly stated rules. If you don't want your inappropriate question deleted - don't ask it. SteveBaker (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that a guideline is not a policy? --Nricardo (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You may - but it's irrelevant. If it were a policy - we could conceivably get in trouble with the admins if we didn't remove an inappropriate question - but since it's "only" a guideline, it's merely considered OK for people to remove inappropriate questions. Hence it was OK for FiggyBee to remove it per the guideline. I don't see how that makes any difference. SteveBaker (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reference desk would be the place to do so, not here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In answer to the perfectly legitimate question: we have no way of knowing. Presumably, you signed a document when you received the card. Consult that document. The answer is there, though probably not clearly. --Nricardo (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pest Control

How do I keep pidgeons off the roof of my home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppersmommy (talk • contribs) 00:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

BB gun?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You could get those little spikes you see on the top of signs and overhangs, etc. It would require a lot of them, though. --Tango (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You could try one of those fake owl thingies, though my experience has been that their effectiveness is fairly limited. 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Flamethrower? Or a sprinkler? 71.176.156.86 (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading Bird abatement. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I cringe to see the spike thingys because just a roll of wire drawn out into loops and fixed at both ends keep pigeons off window ledges and the like without a drop of blood or lamed feet. Poor pigeons, they only "home" after all. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

obscenity

How can you be sued for selling something obscene? If hardcore pornography is perfectly legal then how can selling a poster of penises be illegal? Yeah the charges were eventually dropped in that example, but why didn't their lawyers just say "lol what, free speech. /trial" 71.176.156.86 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In what jurisdiction? Algebraist 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the example given, the US. Hardcore pornography is restricted in the US, for example I believe there are age restrictions on who can buy it. Selling hardcore pornography to a minor could well be illegal, so including it as part of something that could be sold to minors might be too. --Tango (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that "In the U.S." is an impossible to determine factor. The Supreme Court has ruled, on multiple occasions, that obscenity is not covered by free speech, and that it is defined by "community standard"(aka the Miller test), thus it is not an issue for the federal government to determine. Also, while Congress can pass laws to restrict "interstate commerce" of obscene materials (such as transport of pornography accross state lines) it cannot, under its enumerated constitutional powers, directly legislate against the sale of pornography within any state. Basically, this function is left up to state governments; what is legal in one U.S. state may be illegal in other states. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You would not be "sued" for selling obscenity, you would be arrested for it and taken to trial on a criminal charge. Lawsuits are civil matters between an aggrieved individual and the person who is being accused of committing the aggrievement. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Presidential lifespan

What US president has lived the longest after their term ended? Nadando (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover, with (i believe) Gerald Ford (the oldest ex-president) as runner-up. —Tamfang (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Could Jimmy Carter be third? Warofdreams talk 12:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. —Tamfang (talk) 03:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

For those that care, the following all lived in excess of 20 years after leaving office. (dates are end of presendency - death year):

• Herbert Hoover, 31+ years (1933-1964)
• Gerald Ford, 29+ years (1977-2006)
• Jimmy Carter, 27+ years and counting (1981-present)
• John Adams, 25+ years (1801-1826)
• Millard Fillmore, 21+ years (1853-1874)
• Martin Van Buren, 21+ years (1841-1862), a few days less than Fillmore
• Richard Nixon, 20+ years (1974-1994)

A few died within 10-20 years of leaving office, but most died within less than a decade after leaving office. Also, 8 presidents (out of 42, slightly less than 1 in 5) died in office. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't help thinking it'd be relevant to know how old the president was at the end of his term -- Ronald Reagan's life expectancy would have been far shorter than Richard Nixon's or Teddy Roosevelt's. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed-circuit wiki?

I know there are several wiki engines available for free on the internet for those wishing to create their own wikis, but is there a way to create a sort of closed-circuit wiki, in which the contributors are limited to registered participants? I'm thinking of an encyclopedia on a specific topic, available for anyone to use to obtain information, but only moderator-approved account holders could create or edit pages. Is there anything like this out there? I've searched for something like this, but haven't been able to find anything. - James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can turn off open registration in mediawiki, and you can restrict edits to registered users. Then manually create accounts for editors. 71.176.156.86 (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Sharepoint Services includes a wiki. It's easy to set up, but it's really terrible. I'm pretty sure that the mediawiki.org wiki engine is free. I think it runs with a php front end and a SQL backend. You'd need a server to run it on (any computer would do for an "intranet" site, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of internet sites that will host it) and someone who knows php and sql well enough to go through the setup.

As for access control, the most secure would be to host it on your own server, and only provide access to people in your network. It looks like the mediawiki engine allows the creation of user-level permissions though: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgGroupPermissions NByz (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to use MediaWiki - just like Wikipedia. You can indeed set up the permissions so that the only people allowed to edit have to have accounts - and you can limit account creation to the admin class - then make yourself be the only admin. Then, the only people who can edit are the ones for whom you, personally, created an account. Of the other Wiki's I've used - not one has come even close to being as good as MediaWiki. This should come as no surprise - any piece of software that can survive the pounding that Wikipedia gives it must be pretty solid. However, setting up a general-purpose encyclopedia using such a closed Wiki is kinda silly - you'll never come close to the depth and breadth of Wikipedia. The interesting areas to attack with private Wiki's are the extreme niche topics that don't pass Wikipedias' "notability" guidelines. An example of a completely locked-down Wiki would be my own - http://www.sjbaker.org/wiki ...it's not an encyclopedia - it's just the way I organize my own web site - and only immediate family members have accounts. You'll notice that there are no 'edit' tabs on any of the articles because you aren't logged in - and the 'login/create account' button doesn't in fact let you create an account (hmmm - I should probably change the label on that button). SteveBaker (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone wants to "come close to the depth and breadth" of Wikipedia, and in some settings the edit wars, trivia, and emphasis on pop culture give Wikipedia a bad reputation. Also, the typical organizational or corporate wiki is not open to just anyone; it's tailored to a specific group. MediaWiki is an excellent but complex system; another alternative is PBwiki, which can be set up within a firewall. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Drugs and kissing

If I made out with someone who turned out to have used some kind of meth or speed earlier would the drugs have been transferred to me, even a tiny bit? This is not a request for medical advice, this happened months ago... --124.254.77.148 (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You could probably count the transferred drug molecules on one hand 71.176.156.86 (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're worried about testing positive, it would only be your hair that still contained any traces after this long. It's almost impossible that it would be detectable by any means. [[1] for some info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NByz (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If your kissing partner had taken a liquid or loose powdered drug orally, and it was immediately before you locked lips, yeah, there'd probably still be enough of it lingering in his or her mouth for at least a "tiny bit" of transfer to have taken place. Whether or not this would have had any effect on you depends on the type and potency of drug, the amount present, your own sensitivity, and the duration and intensity of contact (trying to crawl down your partner's throat for five minutes is going to have a bigger impact than a little light tongue-teasing). If the drug was smoked and you could smell it on his or her breath, that IS transfer (definition of "secondhand smoke"), but not enough to cause intoxication (unless you kissed your partner just seconds after he or she inhaled the fumes, but before he or she exhaled, which obviously isn't the case here) or lasting damage (assuming no frequent repeat exposure). However, if the drug was injected or taken in capsule form (or taken in liquid or powder form long enough before your kiss for trace in the mouth to have been washed away), there's no reason for there to be any significant amount of the drug in your partner's mouth. Not enough to harm you, and certainly not enough to register positive on any drug test. - Lethe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.227.218 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel a bit better now. Still angry at the boy though... --124.254.77.148 (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan potato patty/pancake

One of my co-workers -- I think he is from Pakistan -- sometimes brings in this delicious snack food that his wife makes. I would love to know a name for it that will let me look up the recipe (he just calls it potato pancake) and/or how to make it. Unfortunately, when I asked, he said he'd have to ask his wife and what he reported back didn't give me enough detail to figure it out. But it seems to be made with mashed potato and cilantro (the leafy herb), green chili (maybe) and coriander (the spice), and he said that there is also egg in it-- that must be what binds it together. And they appear to be pan fried. They are slightly smaller and flatter than a typical hamburger patty. I've tried to find a recipe on the web that sounds like it would make something close, but I've had no luck, and there don't seem to be any cookbooks on the cuisine of Pakistan in my local library. Anyway, does anyone know what this dish is? 68.251.61.102 (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if it helps, he is Muslim, not Hindu. 68.251.61.102 (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds very similar to smaller version of a Spanish Tortilla, however, as I have not have specifically seen the dish you have described, I cannot say with any level of certiany how similar they are. --70.156.13.172 (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't anything like as eggy as that-- it is much more potato than egg. 68.251.61.102 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It is Kuku (pronouced exactly like cuckoo the bird) and it has different sorts, including potato kuku and vegetable kuku. --Omidinist (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, though that dish (based on a quick google search for recipes) also seems to be an egg dish rather than a potato dish-- I wouldn't have realized there was egg in the dish had I not been told. This thing is more like a potato croquette, and the potatoes in it are almost the consistency of very lumpy mashed potatoes. But at least now I have a lead! 68.251.61.102 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on Potato pancakes, aka Latkas, which focuses on the Eastern European/Israeli version. However, as simple as potato pancakes are, I can't imagine that these are all that different from the Pakistani variety (like Polenta/Grits, its all in the name, the recipe's the same)... The article also contains external links and if you follow some of these you may have success. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The polenta and grits articles disagree with you there, Jayron. Rmhermen (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, there's nothing in either article that indicates that one is indistinguishable from the other. Both are essentially a cornmeal porridge or mush, and any variation on the basic recipe in Italian cuisine is likely to have the same variations within the Southern U.S. cuisine. There aren't too many different ways to mix cornmeal and water and boil it. Subtle seasoning differences may exist, as well as the exact coarseness or fineness of the grind or variety of the maize, but really, mushy boiled cornmeal is mushy boiled cornmeal. Same with potato pancakes. There are likely to be regional variations on the basic recipe, but there aren't too many different ways of frying a flattened disc of mashed potatoes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Polenta and grits taste very different. You should quit reading the articles and actually try them — the differences are not subtle at all. Both of them can be really excellent in their own way, but no one is going to confuse the two. --Trovatore (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have eaten them both, quite often. Some varieties of polenta taste very different from some varieties of grits, though others are closer. I have had different grits which I would describe as more different from each other than either was to certain varieties of polenta, and visa-versa. There's a striking difference between regional cuisines even within larger ethnic traditions. There isn't some singular "grits" recipe, nor is there a singular "polenta" recipe. Its all in how "grandma" used to make it, and my grandma probably did it very different than your grandma... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would call it Potato bhaji or pakora. --ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Maybe leaning slightly more strongly towards pakora. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like a Cutlet to me. See the vegetarian version under the Indian Cuisine section. --Zarfol (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Egg Patties? There are so many different ways to make it. See [2], [3] -- manya (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dry Ice and Alcohol

What would happen if one was to drop a few cubes of dry ice into a glass of whiskey? Would the whiskey freeze? Would it still be drinkable? Acceptable (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say something like this would happen. bibliomaniac15 02:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest in the strongest terms that no one experiment with it, but at one time college chemistry grad students would make a punch called "rocket fuel" which consisted of "Everclear" grain alcohol, sherbet, pineapple juice, and dry ice. It would bubble and foam and cause inebriation if consumed. It had more "punch" than its taste implied. Edison (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding dry ice to a punch bowl can be perfectly safe if one takes care. Note that it is essential to get food grade dry ice; it's made from the same purity of carbon dioxide that is used to carbonate soda pop. Handle the dry ice with clean gloves and store in clean containers. Use only in a well-ventilated area. Don't add dry ice directly to a warm, empty, glass bowl; the thermal shock may crack the glass. Read the MSDS. Your mileage may vary. Etc. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

At parties in my youth, I sometimes drank orange juice with Irish Mist and dry ice. Did the job; didn't kill me. —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw a short section of a travel show about a (Japanese?) restaurant that specialised in food served with dry ice as a gimmick - your soup comes steaming cold. Steewi (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Series of specific Japan-related questions

I might be traveling to Japan soon, and I wanted to find out a few things about Japan:

I am a US Citizen, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Spanish. I am planning on participating in the JET program, if they would be kind enough to invite me to teach.

I have a three questions:

1. How hard is it to get a long-term living visa in Japan?

2. It is possible for a foreign resident in Japan to work as a police officer? (Assuming I am entirely fluent in English and Japanese.)

3. How hard is it to get a job in USA - JAPN diplomacy? What kind of jobs are available?

I appreciate it, --70.156.13.172 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the question #2:No. You have to be a Japanese citizen to be a police officer. Oda Mari (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1. By 'long-term living visa' I assume you mean 'Permanent Resident Visa'? It is not hard to get, but you need to be continuously resident in Japan for ten years before you can apply for one.

2. You can actually become a police officer even if you are not a Japanese citizen. The testing procedure, however, is very difficult, and more often than not you will be failed, with a different reason given, other than the one that you are a foreigner (I worked for the Police).

3. Diplomatic work should be sought through your own government, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Japan.

Hope this helps.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

2:No. Working for the Police and becoming a police officer are different. Only Japanese citizens are qualified for the test. That is written at the bottom of the 3 受験資格 section on this Metropolitan Police Dept. page Oda Mari (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear enough. I did not mean that because I worked for the Police anyone can, I meant, in my capacity as an interpreter for the Police, I did actually meet several Police Officers from Brazil, none of whom had Japanese passports or dual nationality. All you need to be able to do to be a Police Officer in Japan is drink coffee and write parking tickets once a month, anyway.--ChokinBako (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ChokinBako, you answer is still not very clear. You're saying you "worked for the police" while at the end of your paragraph you are talking about very loose requirements to be "a Police Officer." I would be inclined to believe Oda in regard to wether or not a non-citizen could become a police officer as I have read the page reference. Anyway, could you clarify what are you saying?

If time is infinite...

moved to Science desk ~ mazca ^t|c 07:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The "one vote" candidate

I remember reading an anecdote a long time ago of a candidate for a lower-level political office who received just one vote. He didn't win, but it came out that obviously not even his wife and close family voted for him...the one vote he received was his own. Does anyone know A) if this was a real incident and if so, B) who it was? --Kickstart70TC 05:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's better than that. In a December 1860 UK election, the Temperance Chartist candidate F. R. Lees of Ripon, Yorkshire, received no votes at all. Not even his own. Which makes a kind of sense: if even he didn't think he was worth voting for, why would anyone else? A manifestion of the ultimate lack of self-esteem, really, and I wonder why he even bothered becoming a candidate in the first place. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe UK election law requires you to be a registered voter in the constituency you're standing in, so maybe he just didn't have a vote there. --Tango (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That'll teach me to comment gratuitously. I withdraw my remarks unreservedly and I apologise to the estate of the late Mr Lees. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

F R Lee's failure is described in United Kingdom by-election records#Lowest share of the vote, which says "his supporters mistakenly believed that he had withdrawn". A candidate getting no votes has also happened more recently in the UK, in the 2007 English council elections. According to the Daily Telegraph, "A Conservative candidate made history by failing to attract a single vote ... Shirley Bowes, 72, was even unable to vote for herself because she lives outside the New Trimdon and Trimdon Grange ward that she was contesting on Sedgefield district council."[4]--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For a more recent example of a candidate who won just one vote, see Catherine Taylor-Dawson. Warofdreams talk 12:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz, in India, when you are candidate for some types of elections, you become eligible to get some services (like new telephone lines) faster (in few days). Ordinary people generally have to wait for weeks/months to get it. manya (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Are you saying that people become candidates purely to get these quicker services, without any intention of pursuing their campaigns, and don't even vote for themselves? I could believe that, but with the numbers typically involved in Indian elections, it's hard to believe that not a single other person would vote for them, even accidentally. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard of zero votes so often in India, but it does happen sometimes (e.g. Out for a duck in Mohali poll). Couple of decades back, waiting period for some services was so long that it was worth becoming a candidate for election and get services with priority. Such candidates don't care about the money they deposit for election which they lose because they cannot get minimum number of votes required to claim back the deposit. And when intention is only to get the services, whats point in voting for self when candidate actually wants other deserving candidate to win and therefore votes for him/her. (It is obvious that, in such cases, the constituency of candidate is typically the residence area where candidate is registered voter.) manya (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

death toll

overall how many people died in WWI

overall how many people died in WWII

overall how many people died in the second Congo War, or the Congo wars in general

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See List of wars and disasters by death toll. Algebraist 11:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): Our articles on World War I, World War II and the First/Second Congo War should help. Check out the "infoboxes" - the table on the right-hand side of the page that summarises key information. Booglamay (talk) - 11:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and for any one elses benefit,

WWI 19,11000 WWII 70 000 000 1+2 Congo 4 100 000

Please see my next questio below some where Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Pottery

Can anyone provide some links to some useful sites about Ancient Egyptian Pottery? I've been looking through here trying to finding an article about it but so far there hasn't been any luck. Thanks in advance

BlebBlebBlebBLEB (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - I don't see a lot of stuff about the subject but:

• Egyptian faience
• Canopic jar
• Ancient_Egypt#Technology
• Ancient_Egyptian_technology#Glassworking
• Art_of_Ancient_Egypt#Pottery

Click on any little blue numbers in square brackets embedded in the text to find references and links to other sites. I hope this helps. SteveBaker (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Drinking beer through a straw

Is it true that drinking beer through a straw makes you drunk more quickly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.197.100 (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, unless you drink faster through a straw. Darkspots (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of myths out there on what can make you drunk faster. The actual thing is, the only factor that matters is how much ethyl alcohol you ingest in a given time period. Say beer is 5% alcohol, and you consume a pint (roughly 500 ml), you will have consumed 25 mL of ethyl alcohol. If you take a 50 mL shot of whiskey that is 100 proof (thus 50% alcohol), you also get 25 mL of alcohol. If you drink, say 1 beer every half hour, or drink one shot every half hour, you will get drunk at exactly the same rate. The difference between beer and hard liquor is that generally you drink beer slower, since it has a higher volume, and since you often have to piss quite more often, so under equivalent drinking conditions, you tend to get drunker slower. However, if you are guzzling the beer, and sipping the whiskey, you will definately get drunk faster on the beer than the whiskey. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You go a bit far in saying that ingestion is all that matters. Absorption matters a lot, too, as anyone who's done any drinking on an empty stomach will attest. --Sean 13:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - it's not the amount of alcohol you ingest it's the concentration in the blood - which is determined by the rate at which it's being absorbed against the rate at which it's being metabolized. If you consume alcohol at a rate slower than your body can metabolize it - you can drink as much as you like and never get drunk. That's why you get less drunk if you eat food while drinking - the digestion of the food slows down the rate of alcohol absorption which means that the peak blood-alcohol concentration will be lower and you'll get less drunk. SteveBaker (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

. . not forgetting that when you're eating your blood glucose is going to be higher. The effect of drunkenness is enhanced with a low blood glucose. Richard Avery (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the OP, despite all your well doctumented scientific knowlege, that I am sure is in good faith, I have tried the beer through a straw trick, and it does get you more drunk than just drinking it normally, Cider works better though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You think the straw thing works, try a liter of beer in a large funnel with a long enough piece of wide aquarium tubing attached to the narrow end to let gravity force the beer into your stomach in a few seconds. Repeat once or twice, depending on your tolerance to alcohol. Be sure to try this in a crowded room full of people chanting your name. Surprisingly effective. Darkspots (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just don't do it with water! A friend of an old teacher of mine tried that (everyone else was doing it with beer, but he didn't drink) and ended up being rushed to hospital. Of course, doing it with alcohol isn't entirely wise either since it allows you to consume it fast enough that you've already consumed a fatal dose before you're drunk enough to pass out and stop drinking (which usually saves people). --Tango (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that beer is also mostly water, so any such effects would be equally present in funneling beer as well as pure water, amd this is compounded by the fact that beer also contains alcohol... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Blood is mostly water too. It's drinking a lot of something more dilute than blood that is the problem. I'm not entirely sure where beer falls in the range of concentrations, but it's certainly more concentrated than water so you would need more of it to dilute your blood to dangerous levels. --Tango (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, alcohol is a diuretic which is going to help. --Tango (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, beer funneling is insanely dangerous. But so is drinking beer in general, if you're not careful. Hundreds of thousands of people die a year, worldwide, because of alcohol and the things they do while under the influence. Moderation is the key to safety, not wanting to get drunk. Darkspots (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The plural of "anecdotal evidence" is not "data". Darkspots' answer has the original question covered in full. — Lomn 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've heard stories of people getting drunk on non-alcoholic wine and beer (without knowing it was non-alcoholic). If you expect something to get you drunk, it probably will - it's a very subjective thing. While you may not get the blurred vision, bad balance, etc. (or the hangover!), it can still function as a "social lubricant". --Tango (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Tango, you are quite likely to get all of those physical effects, if you believe yourself to be getting drunk. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not everything is susceptible to the placebo effect, are you sure sobriety is? --Tango (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this paper, published by the NIH it certainly is, and such placebo effects call into question whether control groups in alcohol-effect studies can be trusted as control groups, due specifically to what is termed the "alcohol expectency effect", that is some people receive social cues from other, actually drunk people, and thus themselves start feeling drunk. It isn't merely that the participants are knowingly "acting drunk" to "fit in". They may genuinely feel the effects in a real, tangible, physical way, akin to the placebo effect. This simple google search turns up enough scholarly papers to verify the basic principle. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Death Toll II

How many people died in the 20th century due to war. Total, civilians and military. A tuffy, but you guys can do it!! Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. how many people died overall during the Napoleonic Wars, as a direct result thereof Civilians and Military personel? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We will provide an accurate and well referenced response as soon as all the data are available and tabulated. Please have patience, since it will be something over 325,861 days. (Note: the question originally asked for total deaths in the 29th century)Edison (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

HAHA, sorry, type o, i have corrected 29th to 20th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at List of wars by death toll.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1. The first question is impossible to answer definitively, due to whether you include famines and diseases connected with wars, genocides during wars, forced population relocations after wars, etc. So I suggest you work out what you want to include before doing any calculations.

2. Napoleonic Wars casualties. Wow, that was difficult to find. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

According to War, 20th century deaths were between 131.2 million and 217.6 million. Exclude WWI and WWII, and it drops to 51.2 million – 75.6 million. Curiously, our List of causes of death by rate lists suicide but not war . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

just out of interest

in the uk and/or does a solicitor or lawyer or some such person need to be part of a law firm to practice? does a doctor need to be part of a practice or hospital to see patients on a regular basis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can be a self-employed solicitor or doctor. In fact, I think pretty much all GPs are self-employed. Solicitors often form firms together, so they join own the company, but I don't know of any rule that says they can't work alone. --Tango (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are also arrangements where each practitioner is self-employed but a group shares facilities. —Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Many solicitors, and ALL Advocates (aka barristers - ie those lawyers who have traditionally enjoyed exclusive rights of audience in the Higher Courts) practise in isolation (note the spelling). Professionals such as lawyers and doctors practise in a practice, though you wouldn't think so if you saw how many mis-spell the word! In England, those Barristers who choose to do so join a set of Chambers headed by a senior of their number supported by Clerks who "find" work for them to do. But in that scenario, members of the same set of chambers can and do represent opposing sides in both civil and criminal actions. In Scotland, Advocates are members of the Faculty of Advocates wherein they enjoy support services, but again, they are self-employed. 92.21.140.152 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re practise (v.)/practice (n.), I agree with you for Commonwealth use, but I believe "practice" (v.) is the norm for the US and its sphere of influence. Not sure where "practise" fits in over there, if anywhere. Since we're talking about spelling, general references to barristers, advocates, chambers and clerks are not capitalised. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer the second sentence: The spelling practise simply does not exist in usual American English. We use practice for all meanings. Arguably this causes some information loss, but then so does the British spelling vice for both what we would call a vice (opposite of a virtue) and what we would call a vise (a gadget for holding things tightly). --Trovatore (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

UK spelling seems quite appropriate per WP:ENGVAR in a thread dealing with people who are lawyers in the UK. Edison (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's taking our policies too far. In an article on UK legal matters, certainly practise (v.) should be spelt practise, not practice. But if an editor from the US asks a question on the Ref desk about UK legal matters, he's entitled to refer to barristers "practicing" if that's the spelling he normally uses for this word. Friend 92 was right to draw the UK use to the editor's attention, though, and I certainly wasn't quibbling with that. If I were asking a question about US defence spending, I'd spell defence "defence", even though I know the Americans spell it "defense". But if I were referring to the Secretary of Defense, I'd defer to the US usage because that's a formal title and it's properly spelt only one way. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I read both versions of English so often I sometimes forget which is native to my country. Edison (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I liked that - Friend92 - I think I will adopt that as my nom-de-plume. BTW, I pointed out the UK convention because the OP specifically asked about UK solicitors and lawyers, though lawyer is a UK term mainly used in Scotland. Separately, I make no apology for capitalising Barrister etc., as I was keen to draw attention to those terms, given they are not generally used terms, certainly not "Clerks" in the Barristers' Clerk context. Friend92. 92.8.5.97 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the godfather traditionally has the right to name a child. In lieu of this, I will accept payment for your new name, Friend92. If you don't send me money, I'll be forced to make you an offer you can't refuse.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can refuse anything on offer - except temptation!!!! Friend92 92.8.5.97 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can provide plenty of that ... -- JackofOz (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

When is an article actually posted?

I wrote an article in the sandbox and debugged it. Then I hit the save page button. This seems to be as far as the instructions take one. When, if ever, can I actually see the article on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw010000 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't actually create articles in the sandbox, that is just for your own testing. You create the article in the real article's space. Best way to do this is to type the article's name into the search box, click 'Go' and then (assuming no article comes up) click the 'Create the page' link and go from there. Also have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can also create an article in your personal sandbox, User:Cw010000/my sandbox, by typing the complete string User:Cw010000/my sandbox into the search box, then clicking "create the page" when Wikipedia says it can't find an article called User:Cw010000/my sandbox. Now you have a subpage which is your sandbox for developing an article. You will be able to edit it, saving your work, add references, and when it is ready, move it to article space by clicking the "move" button at the top of the page. Use the desired title for the article where it says "To new title." This greatly reduces the chances of an admin or editor with an itchy trigger finger for deleting things seeing your article when it is one sentence long and tagging it for speedy deletion. It lets you develop the article incrementally without accidentally deleting a lot of typing while you are editing it, since each versions is permanently saved when you press save. An article should include reliable sources which have substantial coverage of the subject as references and should make some claim of notability for the subject of the article. There are some exceptions to this, like towns and villages, and members of legislatures, who have been judged inherently notable, and only need to be verifiable by a reliable source. Edison (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

One such page of mine was adapted by someone else into a real article! —Tamfang (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing whatever wrong with doing that - your sandbox doesn't "belong to you" in any particular way. Everything you post here is under GFDL - and AFAIK there are no policies or guidelines asking people not to do that. If you really want to keep something out of the hands of other people until you're ready - set up your own private MediaWiki and do your preparation work there. SteveBaker (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is something wrong with it – it's discourteous. Whether there are "policies or guidelines" or not, I would say that it was rather impolite to take stuff from someone else's sandbox and post it in mainspace, if (as Tamfang implies) there was no communication prior to doing it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

An article developed in one's sandbox may include contributions from others, as did the Archie Frederick Collins article. If someone did a cut and past of a draft article in your sandbox, and used it to create a new article, GFDL is violated because the contributions of any prior editors, including the one whose sandbox it was in, are not acknowledged. It looks like a case of stealing and taking credit for the work of others. That would be grounds for deletion so that the article could be properly created, by "moving" it from the sandbox to article space, as I did for the Collins article. Are there other ways to bring in the history, such as by a merge of the sandbox article and the mainspace article? Edison (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't bothered, apart from temporary alarm that the creator of the new article told me he had "moved" my page. When someone overwrote my shiny new Vampire (Buffy) article with a load of clutter, that got under my skin. —Tamfang (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To the OP: Which sandbox did you use, and when? If you are concerned that you have lost an article you spent some time writing, then don't worry: it will still be there in the history. You weren't signed in under User:Cw010000 (I checked your contributions), but you may be able to find your contributions from your IP, if you use the same computer. Otherwise, look at Wikipedia:Sandbox history or Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing) Sandbox history. The history is by date and time, so you should be able to locate your article. You can then create it in your own sandbox, or as an article as mentioned above. Note, however, that all new articles must meet WP's notability guidelines. Feel free to ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page if you need further advice. Gwinva (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Party

if you throw a party and some one brings drugs, the party is then stopped by the police for to much noise, can you be held responsible for the drugs that they then find there. also, if you throw a party and have drugs there, could you just say that they are not yours and that the party got out of hand and you dont know whose they are. or who is now at yor party that started out as a small get-to-gether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice and it probably varies between jurisdictions. I think a lot of jurisdictions have laws against allowing drugs to be dealt on your property, but I'm not sure what would happen if they were just being possessed and taken, but not dealt. It may also depend on whether or not you knew it was going on. --Tango (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this does not constitute legal advice, but you can be held liable for things that go on at your party, since it is your property, you have a reasonable expectation to control what goes on there. This reasonable expectation does not allow willful negligence, that is being ignorant of a situation you should have control over. In many, many jurisdictions in the U.S., bars and restaurants have been successfully sued by victims of drunk drivers for allowing said people to leave the bar, in a car, in a legal state of intoxication. In many other cases, parents are held legally responsible for parties their children throw, where people who leave that party cause problems. This is held to be true, even if the parents don't actually know about the party. The owners of the property are legally responsible for what goes on at their property. If people are bringing drugs to a party at your house, you can and will be held liable for those people and those drugs. If you don't want people bringing drugs into your house, don't allow them to come. The test is not whether you can be shown to actually know about them; its whether it is reasonable that you should know about them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And of course you don't have to let the cops in. You can just apologize and say "I'll take care of it, thanks" and refuse to let them enter. 71.176.164.70 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless they have a search warrant, of course, but they aren't likely to get one just for a noise complaint. In fact, I can't see why they would even ask to enter if they were only there about the noise. --Tango (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they can enter without a search warrent if they have probable cause to believe that a crime is in progress. Minors consuming alcohol would qualify as such a crime, and having large numbers of people who appear to be minors packed into a house and making lots of noise is probably cause to believe that such a crime is going on. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You're making assumptions about jurisdiction there - in the UK, there is nothing illegal about minors consuming alcohol in a private house (assuming they're over 5, anyway). --Tango (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but so aren't you. There are many jurisdictions in the English-speaking world where it is perfectly permissible for police to enter a residence for any reason... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said they couldn't, I replied to someone saying they couldn't with one way in which they could. I never said there weren't other ways as well. (I may have inadvertently implied it, I suppose.) --Tango (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, Who's on First? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Does saying "We can't give legal advice" or "this does not constitute legal advice" mean that the rest of the paragraph does not contain legal advice? Is this a lawyers trick to be able to break the rules? Phil Burnstein (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For the millionth time:

"legal advice is the giving of a formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law by an officer of the court"

Legal advice is distinguished from legal information which is the reiteration of legal fact. Legal information can be conveyed by a parking meter, sign or by other forms of notice such as a warning by a law enforcement officer. Printed legal materials, such as directions and how-to manuals, are generally not considered legal advice. Accordingly, directions on how to fill in a motion form and other court documents do not constitute legal advice

--72.236.192.238 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Globespan Flight from Glasgow International Airport

When did the Globespan flight from Glasgow International airport to Hamilton International Airport, Canada which was scheduled to leave Glasgow on 30th JUne 2007 (the day of the terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport) actually take off from Glasgow and when did it arrive at Hamilton Int Airport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.230.184 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Call them and ask? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.140.152 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

fog machine

I have a fog machine I just bought for halloween. However, the small tank you poor the fog juice in does not have a hole anywhere where the juice can flow into the main part of the machine. I don't want to waste fog juice so can someone tell me if it's meant to be like this?--76.176.143.54 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Different fog machines work differently, so it's hard to say. I suggest testing it with just a little of the "juice" and see what happens. Perhaps it's meant to turn into fog and then escape from the top of the tank. --Tango (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Typically the fluid in fog machines lasts a long time. What's the manufacturer and model number of yours? Darkspots (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

They use a VERY small amount of juice - the hole you're looking for is obviously there - it's just that it's too small for you to see - you might well be looking for something the size of a pin-hole. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

have fun with it, but be advised that those things can fill up a house with fog rather quickly! I enjoy mine outdoors for the most part. As Steve said, they do use a very tiny amount of juice so the hole may be hard to see. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Selena Vega 215

I own an radio named Selena Vega 215 and I wanted to know from what year it is. I searched on google and wikipedia and i didn't found it. 85.220.105.7 (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My very first effort was to type "Selena Vega 215" into Google and I got a screenful of useful-looking hits. Halfway down I saw "Selena Vega B-215 Model about 1975. Minsk Radio Works. Belarus."...I don't think you searched very hard! SteveBaker (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As SB says above, model B-215 seems to have been produced from 1975 onwards . In 1979 it was replaced with B-216 which looks identical. Another site says: Made in USSR in 1980 - traditional multiband radio, 8 bands on SW and broadcast bands - it employs 24 USSR Germanium & Silicon transistors - supply by 6x D cell for 9V - all electronic parts are USSR made all of good quality, nice radio of good electronic quality, it has good sound and reception - case is made of good quality plastics and wood and the dial is backpainted in many colours. Texts are in English, inside almost all texts are in Russian. This radio has no SSB reception on SW. --62.47.152.186 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually - it starts to look like there were maybe two versions - the "Selena B-215" for the Russian domestic market - and the "Selena Vega 215" for overseas sales - but they seem to be almost identical except for text on the dials and such - so it's pretty certain that 1975 to 1979 is still the right answer. SteveBaker (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks great to know my radio is 30 years old. 85.220.101.206 (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people assume these radios are "Russian" but in fact most of them were made in Latvia # or Belarus. The performance of these sets was excellent but the build quality while very good overall was let down by variable quality soldering and bits falling off. The design dates from the late sixties/early seventies but they were produced (with small variations) up to the late 1980's The VEF 206 (no FM but additional SW bands) was another popular model. Models sold on the Domestic Soviet market lacked the bands above 12 MHz.