Miscellaneous desk
< September 17	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 19 >

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.

September 18

Dating and sex

How long should you date someone before sleeping with them? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you and your boy/girlfriend/partner/whatever. Dismas|^(talk) 00:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However long it takes you to feel comfortable. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your own situation, feelings, beliefs, etc. There's no "right" answer to this. There are plenty of "wrong" answers. ;-) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know oodles of people who waited over a year, but there is no hard-and-fast rule. I also know plenty of people who had sex first and relationships later, and are very happy with the result. It is 100% up to you and your significant other. Plasticup ^T/C 03:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or your religion. Your parents might also have something to say about it, if you're not an adult, at least. --Anonymous, 04:10 UTC, September 18, 2008.

As short a time as possible?? Seriously though there isn't a rule, it's a case of when you both are ready to move things to that stage. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait – dating goes before? —Tamfang (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can stand waiting that long, you can't really go wrong with sex only after marriage. At least that way you know she'll be faithful, at least at first. But really, it's up to you. --Sapphire Flame (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Injured Rat

Hey

I believe my pet rat has been bitten by my large dog. Although he did not peirce her flesh she was very still and not moving after the attack. I began to notice her eye was unusually red and it began to bleed. Unresponsive to food, i lay her in her cage and kept her warm, the next morning she was walking around, cleaning herself and strecthing in her cage, although still moving very slowly and prefering to be still. Is it possible she has internal bleeding and is there anything else i should be doing ?

Thanks QueeniePen (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, you have two options. Either take her to a vet or just hope for the best. If she is walking around a little more and generally showing signs of improvement, things might just be okay. Why do you suspect that she was bitten by the dog? Could her lethargy be caused by some unrelated incident? Plasticup ^T/C 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know she was bitten by the dog as she had his saliva on her mid body as well as hearing him running around afterwards. Ive known him to be snappy around her but this was an unfortunate event when someone had let him in the house unexpectedly. She is ok now roaming around and climbing, the usual. Its just her eye that keeps bleeding hopefully all goes well!

thanks for your help :) QueeniePen (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to a veterinarian immedatly. Nobody here can give you the help you need because we cannot see the rat, nor are we qualified to give such advice. If there are serious internal injuries then there may be nothing that can be done to save it, but taking it to the vet is still better than letting it suffer. I had a pet mouse who had a tumor behind her eye, very similar to how you describe, but it died in surgery because it was just so small. JessicaThunderbolt 15:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Anthony Carlisle

Hello

I have my own website where I freely post much information about famous people and my own research in connection with an art collection.

However, I regret I do not really have the time to add to learn how to add the research to Wikipedia as well as my own website, which is at www.portrait-miniature.blogspot.com and has many supporting pages.

Quite a lot of the research could benefit Wikipedia. Thus I was wondering if there is anyone who would like to select and add information from my website to Wikipedia as they felt appropriate?

For example Sir Anthony Carlisle is only a small stub, but I have just published a lot of amazing information about him on a subsidiary website page at http://british-miniatures2.blogspot.com/2008/09/bone-henry-portrait-of-sir-anthony.html including his attempts to fly in 1796, his connection with photography, and his being the likely model for Dr Frankenstein.

If required I can be reached via email via my profile on my website home page.

Regards Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.153.220 (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, but unfortunately Wikipedia could only use material directly if it was released under a free licence. The only copyright statement I could find on your site was:

Please note that Copyright for all portraits remains with the Owner, but images may be copied for private or educational research with an appropriate credit or an Internet link to this website.

This is not acceptable for use here as Wikipedia requires a free licence allowing any re-use, including commercial. If you were to release the text under a GFDL (preferably by putting a licence statement at the bottom of the appropriate pages) we could then use the text but the images are still problematic if the owners have not released them with a free licence. SpinningSpark 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we're unlikely to use your site, good as it seems, because of our rules on self-published sources such as blogs. Thank you for the offer though. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too hasty, I didn't look too carefully but a lot of the material seemed to be referenced. While you are right of course that a blog should not be used as a source, it could be used as article copy if the refs to reliable sources were included as well. SpinningSpark 12:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

engineering jobs

lets pretend that I have a Mechanical Engineering degree. Where in the United States/English speaking world are places with high rates of engineering jobs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.100.90 (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley? --Blue387 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley is not overly relevant for a mechanical engineer. The good news, though, is that such jobs are nearly everywhere. I would expect a high concentration, though, in major manufacturing areas (such as automotive plants) or the R&D facilities that support said manufacturing (Detroit). — Lomn 13:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's simply a degree in mechanical engineering (rather than a specialized degree in automotive engineering), I'd stay away from Detroit. Most of the jobs are for automotive engineers, and there are a number of colleges in the area that produce nothing else. --Carnildo (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oreo

Which side of an Oreo are you supposed to dunk, the creamed side or the other side? February 15, 2009 (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the first few pictures here. Both sides are dunked together. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. You only dunk ginger nuts. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cream side; the cream is in the middle JessicaThunderbolt 15:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake! No biscuit with cream should be dunked. What the hell is happening to the world! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.187.55 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. It would be a good way to get some cream in your coffee. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Oreo filling isn't really cream. It's mostly shortening and sugar with some vanilla flavor. —D. Monack ^talk 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.4, I think, You're thinking of dunking in coffee or tea. He could be drinking milk. APL (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@JT: I think the OP twisted it first.

@86: I think the OP licked it second. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shlungenfunger (phonetic): an African meat grilling tool

A world traveler friend who had spent a few years living and working in South Africa said they used a common meat grilling utensil termed a "shlungenfunger"(phonetic) and intended to patent and market it in the U.S. It was basically a handled long skinny metal rod with a sharp 90-degree hook at the end. One used it by grasping it with one hand and twisting the "hook" into the meat, lifting the meat off the grill, turning it over, and UNtwisting the meat back on the grill. I saw the prototype that was built but have been unable to "find" the word "shlungenfunger" (phonetic) anywhere on the web? Can anyone confirm the existence of the word in conjunction with the use stated above? Wikimoid (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i have used one on many an occasion when in SA, didnt really have a name though, and its utillity was vastly surpassed by BBQ tongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about the word, but the device is already sold in the US under the name "E-Z Hook", and another version (with rounded instead of squared handles) under the name "Pig tail". Wondrously good for grilling with; I give them as presents to fellow carnivores. The only South African term I've found so far for it is "gaffel", which appears to be the same word as wikt:gaffer. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, on a whim I tried an alternate spelling possibility and did find a German-sounding "Schlangenfanger" here as a brand name for a barbecue utensil. Afrikaans will possibly have an equivalent. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Schlangenfanger translates to "snake catcher"... --Janke | Talk 17:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which sounds about right—you use long hooks like that ("snake hooks") to wrangle snakes. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul von Hindenburg

I was trying to read some quotes by P von Hind. but could only find the wikiquote section for him in German. Understandable, but being such a large historical figure there must be a english sectio on him.

Further more, was he the guy with the spiked hat in the simpson when Burns gets married and he is the only guest on Burn's side exept Homer, Homer says down in front and he say NEIN!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that would have been Kaiser Wilhelm II (see here for an example.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or Otto Von Bismarck. It was a common look at the time. As for quotes, there is no english wikiquote page for him, no. Googling will get you a limited selection. Seems he wasn't that quotable. Fribbler (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distance from Brooklyn Bridge to...

Ground Zero? Anyone know? 80.229.160.127 (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on where you measure. From the center of the World Trade Center site to the center of the Brooklyn Bridge would be almost exactly one mile (1.6 km). From the Manhattan shoreline to the east side of the WTC site would be about 3/4 mile (1.2 km). The bridge's approach roads extend still closer to the site. (Distances measured from the downtown NYC map in the 2001 edition National Geographic Road Atlas.) --Anonymous, 19:00 UTC, September 18, 2008, copyedited later for clarity.

Has any human being gone a lifetime without sleep?

I figure there must have been a few people out there with this odd, highly useful genetic quirk. There's certainly been a few that got by on an hour or two a night. How can you train yourself to do this? I, for one, would be extremely grateful, and would say even nicer things about you guys if you could simply give me a few more hours to my day.--Sunburned Baby (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of well-documented cases of people who had some sort of accident or trauma and they never slept again. In one case the person lived for another 30 or more years, without a wink of sleep that whole time. This is of course exceedingly rare, and to my knowledge medical science has no explanation. Therefore, there would be no known method of making it happen deliberately. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to see a reference on that. My understanding is that an acquired inability to sleep at all, which can occasionally happen, is invariably lethal within a fairly short time (though it probably doesn't feel short — see for example familial fatal insomnia). Extrapolating and speculating, probably some babies are conceived without the ability to sleep, but they die before birth.

Summary for the OP: This is not a thing worth wishing for. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have gone from birth to death without sleeping. Algebraist 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a report of a 3-year old Russian boy who has never slept. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only heard of such things happening after severe brain damage. While they are technically awake, they aren't actually able to function at all (a Persistent vegetative state, probably, although I don't know the exact definition of the term). --Tango (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that you can reduce your sleep requirements by spreading your sleep out throughout the day. Rather than one 8 hour sleep, say, you'd have four 1 hour naps. I haven't read any real studies into it, though, so I don't know how well it works. --Tango (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Polyphasic sleep interesting. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few people, such as Thai Ngoc, who claim they do not need sleep and have not for many years, usually as the result of some trauma. Sleep scientists tend to think they are either regularly napping without being aware of it or are just liars. An old Guinness book of records had some of these people listed along with short term sleep deprivation records from people like Peter Tripp but they have stopped listing them now as they believe they are a danger to health. meltBanana 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This week's Economist has an article that might be of interest: "THE function of sleep, according to one school of thought, is to consolidate memory. Yet two Italians have no problems with their memory even though they never sleep. The woman and man, both in their 50s, are in the early stages of a neurodegenerative disease called multiple system atrophy. Their cases raise questions about the purpose of sleep." DAVID ŠENEK 12:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are animals (Dolphins are one example) who sleep with only one hemisphere of their brain at a time - this enables them to be alert to danger yet still gain the benefits of sleep. Dolphins can't breath without conscious thought - so if they slept, they'd die. It's possible that some of these weird human cases are like that - but I suspect that most of their claims are simply untrue. Who is watching these two Italians for days and days to be sure they never take a catnap? People who (through some kind of brain injury) lose the ability to sleep usually die within a month or two. SteveBaker (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How quickly does Google recognise new words?

I thought about putting this question on the Computing desk and I'm sure there's a case for that, but on balance I thought Misc was more appropriate. Let me know if I made a bad choice.

I recently unintentionally coined the word novomundane, right here on good ol' Wikipedia. It was a nice surprise when I discovered it was unknown to Google. However, Google still produces no hits over 30 hours later. When could one reasonably expect it to have been recognised? -- JackofOz (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect in a month or so. I may have to use this word somewhere! Perhaps I should get back to writing my sci-fi novel for this reason...that is if I have your permission to use it. :PAvnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Avnas Ishtaroth. Be my guest. Words belong to the world (and not just the New World, either). A month sounds a little slow if Google prides itself on being the best search engine in existence. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Google does recognize the similar "novimundanus" as part of a species name. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. Thanks, Adam. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google seems quite slow to pick it up; I don't know how long one would usually expect, but I wrote a WP article last week which showed up first in a search less than an hour later: and I wasn't searching by title, either, but for a name within the article I wanted further information on. Gwinva (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a few searches, I see that Google picks up threads after they're archived. So after a few days, it should be there. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, ta. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's there. Gwinva (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]