Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 August 9

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.

August 9

what does<dracula> talking about??

what does<dracula> talking about??(book) written by pauline francis

i want a plot of this book about 100-150 words. thanks!!Dansonncf (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you.. 152.16.59.102 (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Dracula, including a plot summary. It still may be a good idea to read the homeopathic version published by Fast Track Classics, even if you think this sucks. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Banks cheating

What stops a bank from creating a false account with hundreds of billions of dollars in it, and then use it to buy out their competitors? --Leptictidium (mt) 10:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Auditors, for one. And general government scrutiny anytime there's a big merger or acquisition. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Laws against fraud. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when has a law against fraud prevented fraud?86.202.27.124 (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)DT

That's why there are people whose job it is to enforce those laws. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Banks have to settle transactions at the central bank sooner or later. When they were unable to do so the authorities would get called in and would sort out the mess and the people responsible would go to jail. --Tango (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, sometimes it takes quite a while before the authorities notice that assets are missing. How long it takes may depend on the type of institution, but it can still happen even with a bank. --Anonymous, edited 18:53 UTC, August 9, 2009.

I don't think Nick Leeson ever created money. He just made bad trades and hid them from his bosses. Bernard Madoff did lie about how much money he had in his accounts, but I don't think he ever trade to use non-existent money in transactions. --Tango (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To a bank, an account is a liability: the bank is obligated to pay the owner of the account. Creating a false account is like creating a new debt. Not very smart, is it? DOR (HK) (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Travelling to Cuba - advice required.

I am going to Cuba for a week's escorted tour staying in several hotels along the way before staying in a Havana hotel for a couple of days before then flying to one of the all-inclusive cayos for a week's beach break. I ma British and have several friends who have done this and they all report that I will have a brlliant holiday. I have also done a load of online and library research and whilst most reports are good, I have seen some that worry me. For instance, I am told that some of the hotels we will use have room safes that are locked with the room key so anyone who has room access has safe access too - and some reports have said their safes have been emptied (or robbed) by presumably staff members though denials by management were well - rehearsed. So, having said that, and having myself been the victim of theft in several European and US hotels (nothing expensive as we don't travel that way - but inconveneient nonetheless), my concern about that happening in Cuba is the risk of losing Passports, Credit/Debit Cards, Cash money, Flight Tickets and Visas none of which can be readily replaced in Cuba as I understand matters. I am not too bothered about cameras or watches or items of clothing disappearing but the other stuff is mega-important. So do I have to carry them with me wherever I go, even to the poolside or the Beach? Thanks folks. 92.8.203.168 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This [1] site contains reviews by guests of 75 hotels and 63 B&Bs in Havana. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Silly Putty Bulletproof?

Due to its non-Newtonian nature, when struck with a high-velocity object such as a hammer, Silly Putty hardens, thus preventing penetration of the object. But can silly putty be used to stop bullets? Acceptable (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Take some and see if you can stab a pencil through it quickly. That will suggest the answer to your question. Watch your hand, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, a fired bullet would make a "high velocity" hammer strike look like it's standing still. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything is bullet proof if you have enough of it. The real question is how much silly putty would be required to stop a bullet. I have no idea what the answer is, though! --Tango (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See [2] for the idea used for skiers. I don't believe it is practical for armour but there are some other ideas which would have the same effect and could work. Dmcq (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes and No - it just shatters unfortunately. However you might be interested in this https://www.inventables.com/technologies/impact-hardening-fluid (click the details tab).

In fact the idea of using an anti- thixotropic Dilatant material is quite a common idea eg [3] (seems it's the same D3O^TM? material mentioned above by Dmcq ) 83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of a single unit of silly putty. Anything will stop a bullet if there's enough of it. I think they use cotton to receive the bullet in ballistics tests. A single cotton ball won't impact a bullet much, but a sufficiently large box of them will. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

See Ballistic gelatin. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they use that stuff on Mythbusters from time to time for various experiments, not necessarily just those involving bullets. Part of the reason for a soft receiving material in ballistics tests, of course, is to minimize damage to the bullet so that the rifling marks can be measured accurately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How much money does a chronic alcoholic need to feed their habit?

I submitted this question yesterday, but it seems to have been deleted or lost somehow. Assuming the alcoholic drinks conventional alchoholic drinks of some kind. I'm wondering how big an impact the cost would have on their personal or family income. I recall that when I asked this question yesterday, Wikipedia seemed to think that it contained an url, even though there wasnt one. Thanks. 78.151.123.131 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That question is impossible to quantify without more parameters. 1. Over what period (days, months, years, decades...)? 2. Drink(s) of choice (beer, wine, spirits, champagne...)? 3. Capacity to remain conscious (gender, height, weight, ethnic origin, length of alcoholism... play factors)? -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

According to this website, it can cost as much as $11,648.00 per year! Mgmvegas (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course that is an expensive choice of drink. I'd imagine a person drinking a bottle of spirits a day would choose a supermarket own-brand whiskey and cut the cost in half. Fribbler (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Boone's Farm is only about $4 a bottle... Cheapest crap I know. Dismas|^(talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes jim beam is a rather expensive choice of brew, however so is Jägermeister and I know this dude who buys the larger bottle of jager and its like 13 bucks plus he buys beer as well. You have to imagine that hardcore alcholics spend at least over $6,000 on brew. Mgmvegas (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

From experience of working with alcoholics, the question is impossible to answer for all the reasons given above, but also, and probably more importantly, alcohol is a drug of utter dependence, which obliterates judgement and all sensibility. If the money outlasts consciousness there will be no monetary limits - alternatively, if consciousness outlasts available funds, the only limit will be the initial sum available - and that is when the sufferer, because that is what he or she truly is, will beg, borrow, steal or worse, sell themselves for more drink. Pity them - they are people with families and lives, usually broken. And unlike opiates, alcohol is a drug that some of us can enjoy in moderation without it making us addicts. The best way to give up being an alcoholic? Easy - just give up one drink a day - the first one. Believe me - there is no other way. 92.20.135.252 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Even worse is an addiction to food - you can't abstain completely from food. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I heard a bloke on the radio yesterday who said he drank up to 9 litres of cider per day (I find it astonishing that anyone could survive drinking 9 litres of anything per day, but this person reports their brother does the same). Tesco charge £3 for 2 litres of Dry Blackthorn, so that works out at £13.50 per day, or £4927.50 per year. I'd imagine that, by buying in bulk, picking a super-discount brand, and doing canny shopping things like knowing where to get stuff discounted just before/after its sell-by date, that a dedicated purchaser could push that cost below £4000/yr. That's really not a huge amount, and given that the person doesn't really have to eat (9 litres of cider works out at nearly 3000 calories) and that the drinking is much of their recreation (no cruising or playstation games or expensive ballroom dance lessions needed) it's a cheap, if abjectly horrific, way to live. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just the mere cost of buying the alcohol. From my experience working as a volunteer for a well-known worldwide organisation for alcoholics, you also have to factor in things like costs of consequences of alcoholism. These can be, including but not limited to: DUI/other criminal charges, lost of income (loss of job and potentially your house), cost of healthcare, financial costs if the family splits up... Ask a group of 20 alcoholics and you will get 20 different answers. As to the advice given by the doctor that maybe if an alcoholic used a calculator it would deter them from drinking makes me seriously question his understanding of the physical and psychological dependence on alcohol an alcoholic has. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how much a year's worth of Thunderbird would cost. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"3 Buck Chuck," or Charles Shaw wine sells for 2 to 4 dollars (U.S.) a bottle. Two bottles a day would handle most alcoholics, requiring about an hour's pay each day at minimum wage. Box wine is also cheap. Edison (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I know an alcoholic who holds down a job and drinks on average 120 units a week. I didn't imagine he could keep on going and he has had several seizures but I have been aware of him drinking this kind of quantity for the last 7 years. He likes to drink wine and strong beers and spends around £150 a week on alcohol. 86.152.23.214 (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability

How many reliable sources do you need to make something notable. The Red Peacock (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevent, being referenced by a any number of reliable sources does not make a subject notable - please read the guidelines on notability you linked to. Specifically the bit about "general notability guidlines" 83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. The general notability guidelines do involve mentions in reliable sources. It is not as simple as just a number of sources, though. --Tango (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - the number is irrelevent.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The number isn't irrelevant, it is just one of many factors. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If a subject is not notable it won't make it notable by providing reliable sources for information on that subject. Reliable sources are not a guarantee of notability quote:"... means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion."

Also there are further requirements for those 'reliable sources' - reading the WP:Notability article would help. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Substantial is as important or more important than reliable. A person whose name is mentioned in passing in ten reliable newspaper articles, but where none of the articles deals with that person in depth would be LESS notable than someone who had a single reliable book-length biography written about them. Its about the quantity and quality of reliable text, not about the number of citations. --Jayron32 18:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a section in an essay Wikipedia:Existence_≠_Notability#Don't_create_an_article_on_a_news_story_covered_in_109_newspapers which gives an example of why number of reliable sources isn't always everything.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What do fighter pilots actually do?

I'm a computer programmer. My father is an architect. My cousin is a fighter pilot. My typical workday consists of receiving feature requests and bug reports from internal testers and end users, and handling each of them by writing new code or fixing bugs in old code, testing that they work, and sending the fixes to the internal testers before shipment to customers. I imagine my father's typical day consists of creating 3D models of buildings and calculating every detail about how well they will work, and how much work and money they will cost to actually implement. But what does a fighter pilot's working day actually contain? What do they actually do when flying the planes? Are they told to fly from point A to point B and back, or something? Do they get paid for just being able to fly the planes or do they have a further use or purpose? Of course, in wartime, fighter pilots are needed to shoot down enemy planes, but I can't imagine what actual content their job has in peacetime. JIP | Talk 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine a lot of it is exercises to simulate actual warfare as closely as possible, so they are ready if they are needed. There are quite a lot of jobs like this; firefighters spend more time in training than actually fighting real fires and attending real accidents, etc. It would be nice to hear from a real fighter pilot -- Q Chris (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fighter pilot, but I'm a licensed private pilot. One of the first lessons a pilot learns is to, regardless of distractions, fly the airplane. The fighter pilot has a lot of radios and computers and weapons to handle, but unless he flies the airplane he just makes a smoking hole in the ground and all that stuff is useless. It goes without saying that "he' includes "she" here. PhGustaf (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fighter pilots, as with any pilots, have to stay in a state of readiness, whether they're actually in a combat mission or not. Otherwise, as Ph suggests, they could end up augering into the farm they buy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the best flight lessons I ever had was from a grizzled old-timer giving me a check ride. I followed the procedures, and turned down the throttle just after takeoff and took a gentle turn to avoid the golf course. He firewalled the throttle, straightened the plane out, and said, "Fuckem. They don't care if you crash, why do you care if they miss their putt?" Best advice ever. PhGustaf (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Did it occur to your grizzled oldtimer that those golfers get to vote on whether your airport stays open or not? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! Gotta love those guys. At any rate, as has been said, fighter pilots need to fly. Hundreds and thousands of hours flight time, maneuvers, technical limits, worst-case scenarios, etc. It's a hugely technical process, and increasingly so, and can require a very studious ethic. I'd recommend reading Yeager: An Autobiography - it's a great read, but it deals with a lot of the technical aspects of flying, and that was 50 years ago! As for what their job is during peacetime, well, they're in the Military, which is a full-time occupation. The role of the Military in peacetime is another question altogether, but deterrence and rapid response in a downfall of order seem to be the standing orders. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My scariest moment in an aircraft was the time I was practicing maneuvers solo in my Cessna 150 and managed to enter a full-power spin. I learned very quickly that the ailerons did not work well in that circumstance. Fortunately, I had 8'000 feet or so under me, and it took me only 2'000 feet to recover. Altitude and airspeed are good. The book procedure for a fighter pilot in this case would be to eject, but a) I didn't have an ejection seat handy and b) it would have been a bummer to show up at the airport missing an airplane. PhGustaf (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely a fighter pilot would try and recover from a spin like that - those planes aren't cheap (and if you're over enemy territory you risk capture by ejecting)! They would eject before they hit the ground, of course. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My spin was in a Cessna 150, one of the most forgiving aircraft ever. Somewhere around I used to have a manual for a P-51, which would lose 10'000 feet before recovery in a full-power spin. Modern fighters are pretty much bricks with big engines. PhGustaf (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fighters, especially modern fighters, spin very differently from General Aviation aircraft. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How did you manage to get out of the spin? 89.240.34.84 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I remembered my lessons, eased off on the stick, got the aircraft level once it started flying again, and recovered from the resulting dive. All in a day's flying, given adequate airspace underneath. It was a good thing I learned this lesson at 8'000 feet rather then 400'. PhGustaf (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest you actually look up spin recovery technique for any aircraft you fly. It used to be compulsory to learn it, but I gather it isn't now. The technique you describe above, "ease off on the stick" will sometimes work but it's not the recommended technique. I strongly suggest reading the proper technique. It could be the difference between life and death. Here is a good starting point. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest you lose the condescending attitude? I have had training in real spins, and can recover from them quite handily. My explanation was simplified, but reasonable: with a mile of air under you in a C-150, just letting go of the controls until the aircraft starts flying itself again, and recovering from the resulting dive, is a reasonable technique, if perhaps a challenging one to one's underwear. (Yes, getting the throttle off happens sometime.) Spin training with a mile of air under me taught me to never ever get close to a spin at pattern altitude. Which is after all what it's for. PhGustaf (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not intending to be condescending here, but if you thought that what you described was the best approach to spin recovery then my main objective was to potentially save your life. If you do indeed know the correct spin recovery method then fine. Forget I said anything. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this "peacetime" you are all talking about? There are wars going on all the time and fighter pilots will be doing tours of duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. they will also be on standby in airbases at home in case of invasion, they will be on aircraft carriers ready to go into action anywhere they are needed, etc. etc. When they are in one of those places but not flying they will be keeping up-to-date with the situation, political, strategic and meteorological, they will be making sure their plane is in working order (there will be technicians for that, of course, but I'm sure the pilots keep an eye on them), they will be doing training drills and exercises, etc. etc.. When they aren't in one of those places they will either be on leave or training (which is much the same as action, just not real). --Tango (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A paperback autobiography I happen to have in reach is Mustang Pilot, by Richard E Turner. Dated 1969, it is about his experiences in WWII. I think there are several other fighter-pilot autobiographies from that war. You have to admire their bravery - most of them were killed. 89.240.34.84 (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As is well-known, fighter pilots endure long periods of profound boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror. B00P (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I recall a pilot saying, "Altitude is everything. Nobody ever crashed into the sky." DOR (HK) (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Read "Fighter Pilot" by Paul Richey--Artjo (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Tango has the best answer so far. The peacetime job of a combat pilot is to be ready for wartime. Flying tasks will mostly be exercises, which will probably include destination flights, formation flying , low-level flying and some live-fire exercises. If your cousin is a fight pilot you probably have better access to this information than most of us. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the occasional airshow that those guys might put on. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And racing Top Gear presenters. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There's on old saying about the uselessness of the runway behind you, the altitude above you, and the fuel still in the truck. PhGustaf (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if they ever need to practise a regular gun? --194.197.235.26 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Spare a thought for helicopter pilots who have to train hard not to use the ejector seat. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A helicopter without power has a reasonable chance of autorotating to a safe landing. Early versions of the F-104 fighter had ejection seats that worked downwards, to spare the pilot the risk of collision with the empennage. This was of course a bad thing if a pilot had to eject at a low altitude. Some pilots responded to low-altitude emergencies by inverting the aircraft before ejecting, but their odds were not good either. The best solution to the problem was giving up on the airplane, but the intermediate one was an upwards ejection seat with a lot of explosives under it. PhGustaf (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An autorotation is not a safe landing, just a more survivable form of crash except in some circumstances. Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not sufficiently clear. A "good" landing is one in which all the souls on board walk away. A "great" landing is one whence you get to use the aircraft again. Autorotation is iffy for "good" and very unlikely for "great". PhGustaf (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes in DNA

I have moved this question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Changes in DNA, as I think it's better suited there. JIP | Talk 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Help Me Search On Google

I am not here to start a debate or ask anybody for their opinion.

I am here to ask for help and advice. I want you to be a guide to help me do something that I don't know how to do myself.

I have been trying to search myself on the Internet, on Google, for responses by humanists about the world government or globalism criticism by the Christian right. I don't know what key words should I type in or how to search. I have been trying to search but I couldn't find any websites or webpages written by humanists responding to this particular criticism.

So can you please show me links to specific websites or articles which are humanists' response to this particular criticism? If not, then can please tell and advise me how to search and what key words to type?

I need advice.

Bowei Huang (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Google "bullshit" or the latin "Pulvus Taurei" and you have an answer. Seriously, though; check out one of the following: [4], or our very own Secular humanism article. I know "humanist/agnostics" who are far right and far left. But I can guarantee that world-government never features. My own mother is a a secular humanist, and she hasn't replaced my visits with a U.N. ambassador. After much verbosity....I feel this a soapbox.! Fribbler (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bowei Huang, if you'd like to understand what people actually believe, why don't you try to engage with them in an equal and understanding manner? I've spent a lot of time with secular humanists; I've never heard one suggest a world government is a good idea. The idea of a world government was popular during the Cold War because it was seen as the only way to get around the nuclear question between superpowers. Today that sort of thing is a lot less popular, amongst all people, secular humanists included. I think the reason you aren't finding what you are looking for is because it's really not the relevant issue—if you ask a secular humanist what they are most excited about, it is not world government. (Of course, there is variance there as well, but in all my dealings with secular humanists, I've never once heard the idea discussed, and all the ones I know personally would be very dubious about such an idea.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 98. It has been difficult to refute the allegations you have been posting because they are un-serious enough that probably nobody out there has bothered to refute them. It is a little like telling us, "I have read that computer technicians want a flat tax. Can anyone refute this?" The two subjects have little or nothing to do with each other, so whoever makes the allegations has to provide some pretty strong proof that it's the case. I know that the authors you've cited have found an organization that calls itself a secular humanist organization and that one of their many, many aims is that they are sympathetic to a world government at some point in the distant future; but you might just as well find a computer technician organization that advocates the flat tax. There isn't a refutation at hand, because those authors have not provided any meaningful evidence. Tempshill (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The secular humanists I hang around with[[5]] are middle-aged to eldering folks who enjoy listening to whichever "liberal" speaker happens to show up each week and having a nice potluck lunch afterwards. "World government" comes up less often in our conversation than, "Eeew, okra again." We're like Unitarians, but less dogmatic. PhGustaf (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bowei, you've created some weird hypothesis about some connection between secular humanists and trying to take over the world; and now your looking for narrowly defined evidence to back up your hypothesis. Sadly, given the wealth of shit availible on the internet, you will likely find it, or at least find something that you can claim will support your hypothesis. You can prove anything with enough time to search and enough willingness to ignore any evidence which does not support your worldview. Heck, if David Icke can be taken serious by more than one person in the world, than you can pretty much find anything you want to "support" any harebrained conspiracy theory out there. --Jayron32 05:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, be careful of confirmation bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, Bowei asks here for help in finding evidence against such a connexion. Don't bite the sinner for trying to do better, unless you have reason to think it's a sham. —Tamfang (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Having problems finding a pair of words occurring on the same web page using google indicates you are close to a Googlewhack, i.e. the terms are unrelated. Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly people who think that a world government of some sort might be a good idea. After all a world government might be able to stop massacres in Rwanda and Darfur, force Zimbabwe to actually feed its people. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the evangelical types Bowei has been reading about are so opposed to it - it's a necessary component of the rapture. Oh well, I guess we can't expect them to be logically consistent. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The one thing a world government can certainly do is stop emigration, at least for now. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Reference Desk, Bowei. Since you asked for help on how to search, please read:

• Google - Google search basics: Basic search help
• Microsoft Bing - Search effectively
• Yahoo! - Search Basics
• Wikipedia - Wikipedia:SEARCH

We also have a WikiBook, "How To Search", with information on major search providers. Each of these services have different algorithms and different philosophies about the way search result information will be presented to you. You might find our list of search engines helpful if you want to locate other web- and offline- search databases. Nimur (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"I don't know what key words should I type in" ... that problem won't likely be helped much by "Basic search help". —Tamfang (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This situation is a bit like a reference librarian being asked by a patron: "I can't find any books on growing my own kryptonite in the backyard. Please, tell me what I should be typing into the catalogue computers to find books on growing my own kryptonite in the backyard." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bowei, you don't need to know fancy category names to be able to search. The search engines find words inside every site. All you need to do is put in the words you already know about -- humanist world+government globalism Christian+Right.

That will bring you thousands of hits, the first page mostly from humanist organisations. It should not take long to find one that contains the kind of responses you are seeking, or links to suitable further reading. - KoolerStill (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)