Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 8

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 8

control of the house and senate for the past 30 years

I have been trying to find out which major parties have controlled the house and senate for the past 30 years by year or election period. I've tried several searches but have bben unsucessful. Can someone help me by telling me how to phrse the research question? Or direct me to a source who already has the data. Thanks much

John Spitzley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnspitzley (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on each congress: see the List of United States Congresses. From there, link to each of the most recent 15 articles, each of which has a table at the bottom for the house and the senate. -Arch dude (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There was an awesome Table/List that showed this. I remember commenting on its AfD. If it wasn't deleted I might be able to find it. Plasticup ^T/C 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it be this one? Fribbler (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge of U.S. presidential race in foreign countries

I am curious what kind of information is well known in other countries regarding the U.S. presidential race. Are Barack Obama and John McCain household names where you live? Are they barely a blip? Are you saying, "who?" Have any of the U.S. presidential debates been broadcast on your television stations? I'd be curious about both English and non-English speaking nations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

UK. The debates are on TV here, but in the wee small hours with little uptake. For those interested in politics, McCain & Obama & Palin are well known; they feature regularly enough on mainstream news, so there should be high name recognition even amongst those not interested in politics. Biden less well known, I think. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. presidential campaigns are always big news in Australia, and everyone knows about Obama, McCain and Hillary Clinton. When Obama beat Clinton for the Democrat candidacy, it was BIG front-page headlines ("The Winner!!" or similar - at least as prominent as the winner of our own federal elections). The recent debates have interrupted scheduled TV programming; the Obama-McCain debate was shown on 2 channels simultaneously (ABC and SBS). This irked me, not because we shouldn't see such debates, but because I was planning to record a program of special interest to me, and it was shoved off without a word of explanation. During the period of the Obama-Clinton contest, there was relatively little mention of McCain at all, and the impression one might have got was that the Democrat contest was the only one that mattered, almost as if the winner would automatically become president. That's since been rectified by the re-emergence of McCain onto the front pages. Sarah Palin has also received a lot of publicity. Joe Biden cracks relatively little mention, but he's still had enough publicity for reasonably well-read people to know who he is. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada is much like Jack's description of Oz, except worse. Here in the east, we get the direct feed of the US channels out of Buffalo, including Fox, and CNN. (In the west, it's feed from Seattle.) Canada's national election is on October 14th, just a week away, and I would bet there is more coverage on our TVs of the US one than of our own. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Same thing in the west, though since I am somewhat of an Americanophile, I don't mind so much. That being said, almost every Canadian I know has more knowledge of the American system, and even the elected officials in nearby states, than they do of their own area. For example, I cannot name more than a couple members of the city council for the small town I live in, yet I know the name of the Governor of Washington State, and even her primary rival in the upcoming election. That's the power of TV...and I barely watch 5 hours a week. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, impressive. The last Washington gov I can name without looking it up is Dixy Lee Ray, and I live on the West Coast, even. --Trovatore (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In Bermuda, Obama and McCain are eclipsing our own politicians. Most people favor Obama, even though he has come out and blasted Bermuda's status as a "tax haven" (which is a silly and over-played term, by the way) Plasticup ^T/C 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, especially how strong the coverage is in Australia. Regarding little mention of McCain during the Clinton-Obama kerfuffle, it was to a large extent the same in the U.S. I'm still curious about other countries but of course given Wikipedia demographics, you lot are not unexpected:-) and after an edit conflict, welcome Bermuda!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is high interest in Obama throughout East Africa. The Daily Nation, the widely read by everyone daily in urban Kenya, runs an article on the US election every day. In the Middle East he is a household name. There is much interest in his Muslim ancestry. Lotsofissues (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

High interest here (New Zealand) also, even with our own governmental election in November. Current NZ opinion for preferred President is about Obama 70%, McCain 30%... and that's a poll from our main conservative daily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomshanka (talk • contribs) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In this part of Canada interest in the US election is about on the level of our current territorial election both of which are lower than that of the Canadian election. And interest in the Canadian election is very low with almost no posters up and very little in the way of direct mailings. Both election. People are well informed about the US election, it's almost impossible not to be, but just don't care. Of course interest in all the elections might be higher if we didn't have to worry about a lack of heat or power in the next couple of days. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

South Africa: Obama and McCain are household names in my experience. For those who are interested, the US presidential race is quite well known. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweden: Household names - as is Sarah Palin, and I think most people also know Joe Biden. Almost every day there is an article about the election in our biggest morning newspaper - about the debate between Palin and Biden, the one between McCain and Obama, today something about Obama's progress in Ohio due to the economical crisis. These last weeks there have been lots of articles about Palin: Palin knowing Russia because it's her neighbour, Palin accusing Obama for having terrorist friends, Palin being mocked and quoted on NBC; but also lots of articles comparing Obama and McCain. Little sister is watching you all over there! Lova Falk (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in the UK and am just one of those people who keep up with the news because I like to know what's going on (and crush on Clinton *blush*). I watch/listen to/read the BBC's various outlets, as well as The Economist. From what I've heard, Obama is certainly the more popular candidate and appears to be a breath of fresh air, although low opinion of McCain may stem from "everyone's" dislike of Bush/Cheney. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say you have a crush on Clinton, are you talking about Bill, Hillary, or Chelsea? —D. Monack ^talk 21:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone's recent dislike of Bush/Cheney is a sore spot for me. I am not at all impressed that six years after taking office people finally woke up, when it was evident 8 years ago that he was singularly unsuited to run anything, much less a country.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't kid yourself too strongly. It's not like the US populace has actually begun to embrace anything different. The chief reason McCain is doing poorly is the economy, plain and simple. US voters are still as myopic and uninformed as always, but when the economy crashes, they actually start to care about how poorly run things are. The second this particular crisis stops they'll go back to their "don't take mah guns!" approach to national politics. (At least, that's how it looks from my, US point of view.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have replied from me as well — this has been quite informative to this particular American. I knew that this election in particular was attracting a lot of foreign attention but I didn't realize it was quite that high. It's hard for me to imagine my fellow Americans caring as much about election elsewhere—unless you religiously read the New York Times you'd never know who was the Prime Minister of the UK or the President of France, for example, and they're probably the best-known foreign leaders over here other than the guy with the hat we propped up in Afghanistan. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the old man in Cuba, don't you think Americans know at least his surname? Lova Falk (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When you say "the old man", do you mean him, or his brother? --Trovatore (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean the president. Lova Falk (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be Raúl, then... FiggyBee (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are people who make the perfectly correct statement "Cuba is run by Castro", without realising they're now thinking of the wrong brother. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand not knowing much about the incredibly lack-lustre Gordon Brown, who adds excitement to a room by leaving it, but are you telling us that Americans generally wouldn't have recognised the name Tony Blair or known what job he had? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Americans in General? I'd guess that about a quarter of the adult population knows exactly who Tony Blair is. I'd also guess that half of the three quarters who don't can't name the continents and couldn't tell you who fought who in World War II or when it took place if you held a gun to their heads.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WWII was the one where John Wayne beat the Japanese, wasn't it? FiggyBee (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that WNYC has a small segment on today's episode of the Leonard Lopate show on the upcoming Canadian elections here. --Blue387 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

how do tv remotes work?

remote control isnt any help. does the infrared emitter emit a different frequency of light for every function? or how does that work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.100.50 (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I got this from that page - "The infrared diode modulates at a speed corresponding to a particular function. When seen through a video camera, the diode appears to illuminate purple light." Twas on the caption of an image . Boomshanka (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Modern TV remotes use infrared signals, although other methods were used decades ago. The same frequency of infrared is emitted, but with different pulse patterns for different functions. The infrared beam is modulated at a high frequency (to make it possible for the receiver to tell control signals from the IR emitted by the sun or other light sources) and then the control signals are sent in a binary code, wherein it blinks on and off to represent a binary number with ones and zeros to tell the TV what to do. There is a general explanation at Remote control and a more detailed technical explanation at [1]. Edison (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question, similarly related, i guess: My cable TV remote control causes the lights on my DVD player to flicker, although it doesn't really do anything but flicker. Why would it do that, when the cable remote is being used for an entirely different device, let alone different functions? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The remote sends binary numbers as rapid on/off flashes of IR light (think of it like Morse code - although it isn't exactly like that) - a different number for each button press. Some buttons (the volume control most noticably) send the same number over and over for as long as you hold the button down - others send one number when you press the button - and not again until you release it and press it again. Those numbers are designed to be different for different kinds of device in order that each device only responds to it's own remote. However, there are a bazillion devices out there and the manufacturers are all competitors - so they don't talk to each other much. It should come as no surprise that occasionally, some codes will overlap. Some devices are designed to flash lights just to let you know that they received an IR message - even if they subsequently decide to ignore it because it's intended to control something else. That's probably what's happening with your DVD. SteveBaker (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, remote control infrared emitters are either rapidly blinking or off. It's like Morse code, but the "on" state is very rapidly blinking light and the "off" state is no light. The remote blinking rate is set to a very specific rate. The infrared receiver in the TV is set up to only pay attention to infrared signals that blink at the exact same rate. The different buttons on the remote send different patterns of blinking and off states of the infrared light.

Look at the pictures on this webpage that explain one type of remote control's blinking pattern: Sony SIRC Protocol. In the first picture, each line represents one blink. (The blink rate for this remote is 40,000 times a second or 40 kHz.) The first picture shows how a "1" and "0" are represented for this remote, then further down the page these "bits" are combined to create codes for the various functions.

So different brands of devices can vary their remote control signals in two major ways: By using different blinking rates, and by using different patterns of blinking and off states for the different functions.

Little Red Riding Hood: My guess is your TV and DVD remotes use the same blink rate, but incompatible patterns of blinking and off states. The DVD's light might be triggered by the correct blink rate, but the DVD can't understand the TV remote's patterns.

173.8.100.50 and Boomshanka: Remote control infrared emitters only emit one infrared wavelength of light. The sensors in video cameras make infrared light look purple on the screen. "Modulating" in this case means turning the rapidly blinking light on and off in a pattern. I only know about "Morse code" or digital on/off patterns. But the section Remote_control#Technique suggests some remotes use different speeds of on/off patterns. (In effect, slowly blinking (at different speeds) the rapidly blinking signal.) --Bavi H (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The power of groups

Is there a concept, or even an equation (which does not appear to be Nash equilibrium) which adequately explains the following concept?

Any individual that supports the goals of a group, the goals of the other individuals within that group, as well as the goals that that individual wishes to meet....will almost always beat out the goals of the self-serving individual who does not align himself with a cohesive group. Possible non-ideal examples: Mafia, Old Boys Network, investment clubs, etc.

Thanks in advance! --Kickstart70-T-C 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you making a distinction between "the goals of a group" and "the goals of the other individuals within that group"? There should be no distinction between those two. Once you remove that false dichotomy I think the Nash equilibrium fits perfectly. I think. Plasticup ^T/C 03:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, some goals of the individual may not be the same as the group. In fact, some of those goals may be exclusively individual, but the group gains a benefit, or the goals may even harm the group. For example, the individual might have a goal to have a facy car. This might help the group in that it raises their potential for outside investment, based on the appearance of success. However, the fancy car may also detract some that, with potential investors believing the members of the group spend money frivolously. Also, while the individual and group may share goals, and the individual in the group intends to support the goals of the group, it's vital that he also supports the goals of the other individuals within that group to be a success. Maybe N.e. does cover what I need, but the article is not clear on the kind of definition I am supposing. In any case, some better examples to explain to others would be helpful if you or anyone can provide. FWIW, I'm trying to explain to my coworkers how working as a team with group goals in mind and being supportive of each other gains us more than the current self-serving (and somewhat backstabbing and overwhelmingly negative) lack of mutual or group support. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Similar ideas are dealt with in Robert Axelrod's The evolution of Cooperation and Brian Skyrms' Evolution of the Social Contract. They both try to explain how people can be altruistic (or follow group goals) and survive when there are people who are primarily self-interested and will free load off the effort of group-minded individuals.--droptone (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't Iceland join the Eurozone?

Why didn't they do so long ago?

Whatever their reasons, it now looks like a bad decision in hindsight? Lotsofissues (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The pros and cons of joining are manifold. There are those who fear losing national independence, or losing power to 'Brussels' (where most of the EU headquarters seem to be situated). Those in favour believe in the increase strength of the union and how it can compete more effectively with the US and other major nations, how it can provide a form of cross-national progressive funding, helping the strong nations provide a stable basis for the developing (or less stable) nations. As for hindsight - it's a wonderful thing, though the current economic climate isn't exactly providing the rosiest of outlooks for Eurozone countries - Germany and Holland have been making recent headlines with some of their rescue-plans. I doubt a significant number of those who previously opposed joining the single-currency would be swayed by the current turmoil in their nation - though it may give the supports of it a chance to say "we told you so" and feel all smug. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be remembered that Iceland is not a member of the European Union, and therefore joining the eurozone is a much more complicated issue than for a member state. There's a question of whether Iceland would even be eligible to join if it wanted to. --Xuxl (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See also Optimum currency area. When setting the interest rate, the ECB takes into account the economic situation in all member countries. However, as a very small country the situation in Iceland is likely not to get a large weight. Also, as an exporter of raw materials (I assume) global shocks are likely to hit Iceland in a different manner from continental Europe. It is not clear that the current trouble wouldn't have been bad even if they joined the Euro, the problem is more that of an extremely large banking sector that has gone wild over the last years. Jørgen (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If Iceland joined the EU, it would have to adopt all its laws (small countries have little leverage to get opt-outs). This would include allowing the free movement of labour, which could be an issue in such a small, homogeneous country. More significantly, it would have to allow other EU countries to fish in its waters. Fishing is a very important activity, accounting for 70% of export income and the Iceland fishery is run in a sustainable manner, with the economic benefits accruing to Icelandic companies and people. The EU fishery policy would best be described as rapacious and would likely lead quickly to the ruination of the Icelandic fishery, to the benefit of the large Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets and processors. That alone is a pretty good reason to stay out. Franamax (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

riddle

hi, i'm from india and i hav a riddle for u.plz solve it, becos i cant

fishermen love me. but doctors hate me. kids want to eat me. who am i? i'm a 13 letter word hint: --H-T---I-ME- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.133.167 (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Chaetognathas or worms (the hint is wrong as it's only 12 letters). Fishermen use worms as bait, doctors don't like to see worms in patients and kids like Gummy worms (Gummi bears). CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice - but it doesn't really fit the hint does it? The trouble is that none of the words in the half-dozen spell-check dictionaries I tested had any 13 letter words that came remotely close to fitting "--H-T---I-ME-" - so I fear that our OP has not copied the hint down correctly...or perhaps the answer is in some Indian language. SteveBaker (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All the things I found indicated that it was chaetognaths or chathuringmes but that the hint was wrong. Just dump the riddle into Google there's plenty of hits. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Chathuringmes --201.158.251.38 (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of this fallacy?

I have looked at the List of fallacies and I find this one. It is probably there but just not obvious from the description. It is an attempt to exclude exceptions brought up to falsify claims. An example would be if someone said "Americans don't know anything about politics and events outside the USA". Someone objects "What about Condoleezza Rice, are you saying that she doesn't know anything about politics and events outside the USA?". The first person says "But she's not American, she's a politician" (or more subtly as "You can't count her, she's a politician"). It is often used in religious debates (He's no Christian, He's a Democrat!).

I have seen this argument a number of times, and until I find the proper name I have dubbed it the "He's no Scotsman, He's a golfer" fallacy. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No true Scotsman. Algebraist 07:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly a variation on the No true Scotsman, though in the normal "Scotsman" fallacy the point put forward to exclude the person, i.e. "What about Condoleezza Rice, are you saying that she doesn't know anything about politics and events outside the USA?" would be responded to with "Well if she knows about politics and events outside the USA that proves that she is not a true American". I think this is subtly different, picking some other characteristic or group they belong to and implying that it is somehow mutually exclusive with the original designation. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because when someone says "Americans don't know anything about politics and events outside the USA", they typically mean "the average American doesn't know...". If that interpretation is correct then using a high-ranking government official to justify American's average knowledge of world politics/events would be foolish.--droptone (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Condoleezza Rice example just seems to the first person communicating poorly, and the second person simply missing the point (perhaps intentionally). That doesn't seem to cover the "He's no Christian!" debate, but that's probably coverd by No true scotsman depending on context. APL (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the retort is mixing in a little straw man. Plasticup ^T/C 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a very good chance that in the upcoming election we may have a high ranking official who doesn't know a darned thing about world politics. But that has yet to be decided yet.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's better than having a high ranking official who doesn't know a darned thing. ;) </off-topic political rant> --Tango (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

XML Parsing Error: Mismatched tag "</off-topic political rant>", opening tag not found.. --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MV Synetta, Maritime Accident in 1986

I am trying to find out how and why the MV Synetta sunk off the coast of Iceland in December 1986? What it was carrying when it did and also any pictures of it before it sank!!! Really any information i can find at all and I'm Struggling Thankyou!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.170.51 (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a British tanker called the Syneta (only one t) and it hit a rock. See TANKER SHIP RAMS ROCK; 12 DIE and there may be more here if you have a password. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Inanimate objects seen as...

Apologies for mucking up the reference desk again, but I think there's a name for the "perceiving objects as living" phenomenon, such as treating a houseplant like a pet. If there is a name for this, can anyone tell me what it is? --Glass Star (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean anthropomorphic or Anthropomorphism? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is similar to this, I checked that first but anthropomorphism is specifically about giving human characteristics to an animal or inanimate object. What Glass Star is talking about is giving animal-like characteristics, and would cover things like Pet Rocks. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

zoomorphic is the animal equivalent. I acknowledge that this might not quite meet the question, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It ought to be Zoomorphism - but our article indicates a subtly different meaning for that term and Wiktionary gives a yet different definition. SteveBaker (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism works for the case I'm talking about, I think. Thanks for the help --Glass Star (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but since when are plants inanimate? Plasticup ^T/C 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken "inanimate" objects to mean things that are not mobile without help. (I'm not going to throw any of my potted plants though.) --Glass Star (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Eppur si muove.

Rapid plant movement. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Documentary/ audience research

hi i need help finding various research, i've found good sources (such as Channel4, BBC commissioning and BARB) already but it's not very specific. In my course we are finding out what reasearch is taken to produce documentaries, we have been told to find out:

• Audience data
• Audience awareness
• Product research
• Audience profiling
• Consumer behaviour
• Consumer attitudes
• Competitor analysis
• Advertising placement
• Advertising effects,

if you have any good websites, research, etc,etc, it will be a great help! cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.81.235 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the references for the article on advertising would be very helpful; that is such a broad area you might get a lot there.I don't know if you've tried Wikipedia before, but you can usually type any of the above things in and get something, though it should be the start, not the end to research.

Also, check out some books by prominent authors who have written about the the field of media. I don't recall a lot of names from my Communication courses 20 years ago, but one I do is Marshall McLuhan.209.244.30.221 (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you're reading from the proper course notes? The points you outline above read like something to do with an advertising or marketing course, nothing to do with a documentary at all. Franamax (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Linkedin" invitation: Should I give a monosyllable?

Dear Abby:

It's true that I have a lousy memory for names, but anyway an unfamiliar name has just emailed me out of the blue to ask me if he can "link me in". I'd never heard of linkedin.com and dutifully surfed there and started to read but pretty soon dozed off. (No offense to the writers of the WP article on it, but this is more of the same.) Sounds like something of absolutely no interest to me and furthermore actually rather repulsive, as it seems to encourage cliquishness, so easily used to ensure that jobs are shared by people of the same skin pigmentation, etc. Anyway I presume it's merely another "service" offered by a company that will sell the info to companies with deep pockets as well of course as (since it's in the US) giving it all to that nice Mr Cheney under the "Patriot" Act.

The message I got is polite, spelled correctly, etc., and it got through my pretty efficient spam filters, so isn't obviously spam. But it's also about as generic as possible. I don't know why my correspondent doesn't start by reminding me what our connection is, unless he lacks the necessary time and effort because he's sending off hundreds of these things. Or then again "he" might be a spambot. Still, as mentioned above, I have trouble remembering people's names, so I have slight twinges of conscience about ignoring what might be a well-intentioned message from somebody I actually know.

What would y'all do?

(No, I'm not a member of Facebook, etc. Quite aside from privacy issues, I've been appalled by what I've seen over the shoulders of Facebook members gazing adoringly at photos of their chums' cats, etc. Perhaps my Facebook-using acquaintances aren't typical and yours are all very different, but whatever the reason these otherwise lucid people seem to regress to a mental age of eight or so when participating, or so their comments imply.)

Hoary (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hoary:

That email sounds like it comes from a classic spambot. If you find yourself wanting to join a friend networking site, I suggest Facebook. You don't have to look at pictures of people's cats, but it can help you stay in contact with friends that would otherwise drift away. In my first year after college I am still in (light) contact with many of my old friends, thanks mainly to Facebook.

Plasticup ^T/C 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

LinkedIn is a social networking site with a business orientation. While it is superfically similar to Facebook et al, it has almost none of the shiny gewgaws and cruft that make all those other sites so annoying, it mostly exists to engender maintenance of contacts to business acquaintances. I'd much rather hear from my old pal Joe Doaks that his company has an opening for a widget designer with my skills than get cold calls from headhunters. I am more than a little puzzled by the slightly veiled accusation of racism; I've never seen anything remotely resembling that. In any case, LinkedIn does, unfortunately, offer the same "give me your email credentials and I'll invite all your contacts!!!11!" functionality that so many sites have these days, and that is probably the source of your mysterious email. If you don't want to respond, then don't. Easy peasy. --LarryMac | Talk 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't heard that LinkedIn was racist, but all the talk about people you can trust, etc., seems only slightly different from talk about the kind of people you feel comfortable working with, who might be the people you're comfortable playing golf with, who might just happen not to include womenfolk, persons of swarthy complexion, etc. I've heard plenty of criticism of meritocracy and of interviews, but I'd thought that the combination of these two was preferable to a computer-powered old-boy network on steroids. All this whizbang technology to such an (apparently) premodern end: but perhaps I should stop worrying and be happy. Meanwhile, I think I'll take your advice and ignore the invitation. -- Hoary (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That didn't sound like his advice to me... Like these people say, it's a social networking site with an emphasis on the working world. It probably won't be particularly annoying or get you a job, but it can be nice (and occasionally useful) to keep in touch with people in a professional capacity. The point LarryMac was trying to make (I believe) is that it's no big deal... TastyCakes (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoary, where exactly do you work? I've worked with, for, and over at least many dozens (probably hundreds) of womenfolk and persons of swarthy complexion. I consider many many of those people my friends. What earthly difference does it make what colour or gender they are? LinkedIn is a site oriented toward business networking, just the same as Facebook and MySpace are oriented toward social networking, Bebo is more child-oriented, and hi5 is some other weird thing. None of those sites has a profile entry for skin colour or a tick-box for "Prevent Jews from contacting me". The "kind of people" you feel comfortable with is entirely your own choice. Regardless of the website, if you entertain prejudice, you will be delivered to the constrained world of your own choosing - just don't complain that your world is smaller than you'd hoped it would be. Franamax (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there any possibilities for two countries to become one?

Are there any possibilities for two countries to become one? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. There have been many times in history when two independent countries have merged to become one single country. At least 3 U.S. states became part of the U.S. that way (see Republic of Texas, Republic of Hawaii, and Republic of California.), though in each of those cases there was an unequal merger; the smaller country essentially merged into the larger one. The Act of Union 1707 created the new country of Great Britain, by formally merging the countries Scotland and England, though the two had been ruled by the same monarch since 1603, when Queen Elizabeth I died and named James VI of Scotland as her heir. The Union of South Africa was created by the merger of several independent dominions; IIRC they all had responsible government before the merger, and so could be considered at some level semi-independent countries both before and after. As far as the current situation, well, if two independent countries, where neither was coerced by the other, entered into a treaty that merged the two countries into one, that could happen. However, given the trends in the international community, where multi-ethnic states have actually been spliting along ethnic lines (i.e. Czech Republic and Slovakia, the various Balkan states of the former Yugoslavia, the Two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, East Timor, etc. etc.) I don't personally see it as all that likely. Since World War II we have seen new states emerge all over the place, but I don't think there has been a single situation since then where two states voluntarily ended their separate existance to form a new, singular state. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that East and West Germany are an exception to your last point, considering that the people on both states wanted to form voluntarily a new state (perhaps the government of one would like to keep the status quo). Mr.K. (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, they were one country to start with, so it was a re-merger rather than just a merger. --Tango (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That could be said of a lot of conquests, for a suitably chosen value of "to start with". —Tamfang (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Groups of independent states coming together on certain areas of governance are becoming popular, the EU, for example, or the African Union. They aren't merging to the point of becoming one country, but they are moving in that direction - some people think they will eventually go all the way. --Tango (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yemen, Vietnam, potentially Korea? Though all of those were perhaps one country to start with before being split. United Arab Emirates might be a case. Denmark and Norway in the 1300s. Federated States of Micronesia? The unification of Italy? Castille and Aragon? Some of these should confirm that two (or more) states indeed can become one. Jørgen (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't quite the same, but there's an analogy. The 6 British colonies (NSW, Victoria, Queensland, SA, WA and Tasmania) federated into the single nation of Australia in 1901. This wasn't done by administrative decree from Britain, but after a long process involving popular referendums held in the colonies. Up till the last minute, there was doubt that Western Australia would be part of Australia (and they later even held a referendum where the majority voted to secede from Australia, but the UK Parliament would not allow it). There's a good argument that what resulted was just another colony, at least until Australia was accepted as a sovereign nation by the League of Nations in 1920, and we certainly didn't achieve practical independence until at least 1930 and not legal independence (almost) until 1986, but that's not relevant to the analogy I'm drawing. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There was also the short lived United Arab Republic. TastyCakes (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S., there is the often overlooked Vermont Republic. There is also the Anschluss that annexed Austria into Germany, then later acquisitions of Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmed, Luxembourg, the Sudetenland and parts of Poland. Also consider the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire and a myriad of other historical examples. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Staying with Jayron's British theme there is also the 1801 merger between the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to form the United Kingdom. ;) Best, --Cameron* 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Dominion of Newfoundland and Canada in 1949. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Come on, New Zealand, how about joining us and becoming part of Greater Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Gwinva (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, why not? As far as I can tell, y'all talk the same, anyway :-) --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not at all, Trovatore. I wouldn't pay sexpence for my fəsh and chəps. Non-ministerial parliamentarians here are called back-benchers; NZ has a different animal called beck-binchers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of crude online maps already label the whole Australasia as "Australia" anyway.. But I'm still surprised it's not Australians that came out with the name "Eee", considering how much you guys love your iː's. --antilived^{T | C | G} 08:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all crude online maps. Gwinva (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. But Tasmanians might be a bit miffed by being regarded as part of the "island of Australia". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Egypt & Syria joined for a time to form the United Arab Republic. —D. Monack ^talk 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Libya was also a part of the UAR for a while. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

the German Empire was formed in 1871 from 25 smaller states. Edison (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A few states in Central America briefly merged then separated again - a few Caribbean island nations did as well. Can't recall the names of those countries though. But if they did it once they could perhaps do it again. Rmhermen (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

West Indies Federation. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite all these examples, it is somewhat strange that two modern states would unite willingly. Nationalism and patriotism usually work against such things. Countries seem more likely to split into smaller entities these days. German reunification is probably the only successful recent example. However, the possibilities are still there. It would take a large event for one country to willingly give up its sovereignty to another country. Steewi (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional: The double government - Yiguo liangzhi - of China is one solution to large scale disputed territory. Steewi (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unification of Italy. Never mind. Already been said. (And I thought I checked so carefully!) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Most people remember the Acts of Union 1707 but there was the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 which gave England and Wales and the Act of Union 1800 that merged the Kingdom of Ireland with the Kingdom of Great Britain to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There is also the Yemenite unification which is only a few months older than the German reunification. There are some others listed at List of national border changes since World War I and List of national border changes from 1815 to 1914. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We might see South Ossetia merge into Russia. Plasticup ^T/C 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not any time soon - even Russia won't want to cause that big a diplomatic incident! (Of course, it is already de-facto part of Russia, so it makes little difference.) --Tango (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The first step, having the breakaway republic recognized as an independent state, is already underway. After a year or two, the people of South Ossetia hold a vote and decide to merge into Russia. Russia graciously accepts. I think it is very plausible, and Putin et al certainly have the balls for it. Plasticup ^T/C 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, that scenario is almost exactly the same one that gave the U.S. the state ofHawaii. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia have recognised it, everybody else (except Nicaragua apparently) still considers it part of Georgia and it doesn't look like that is likely to change. Russia accepting the result of a vote by part of another sovereign state to join them would count as illegally annexing the region and would be an act of war. Whether anyone other than Georgia would consider it worth fighting World War III over, I don't know, but at the very least Russia would be diplomatically isolated and would probably be put under economic sanctions (their economy is rather fragile as it is, I believe, so that's a serious threat). If Georgia joins NATO in the intervening time, then in theory the whole of NATO would declare war on Russia - for that reason, I'm not sure Georgia will actually be accepted into NATO (no-one was willing to fight for them before, so I doubt they will in future). --Tango (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia's "fragile" economy just happens to be the source of a very large portion of Europe's natural gas supply. The sanctions would be applied by a bunch of shivering-cold people - and thereby hangs a geosocioeconopolitical tale. Franamax (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it could turn into an international game of chicken! --Tango (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

TYPE OF CURRENT

WHAT TYPE OF CURRENT IS PRODUCED BY A BATTERY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.37.33 (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Our articles on direct current and alternating current should be of use. Also, please avoid typing in all caps. — Lomn 19:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a battery doesnt produce an electric current regardless, as its not a current source; but it can deliver a current to an electrical load. But lets not get too persnickety.--GreenSpigot (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Direct Current92.2.26.236 (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FINALLY! A direct answer. Edison (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Edison, you've already been warned about your negative bias on this subject ;) Anyway, what if you were pushing the battery through a tube? Then it would produce an air current. Franamax (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, i feel its always best to give a direct answer. Air current, LOL, that's geneus! 92.5.37.195 (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)