Miscellaneous desk
< December 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	January 1 >

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.

December 31

Time at the Supermarket?

Are there any studies out there that show how much time the average person spends each week at the supermarket? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.236.111 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be skewed by all the people who do not visit the supermarket -- perhaps averaging the time supermarket-goers spend there would be more useful. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i work as a manager in a supermarket and there are many studies which are commercially sensitive, as to how long people spend in supermarkets. The layouts of supermarkets are specifically designed on this basis that they encourage purchasing. For instance: wide aisles encourage consumers to walk through more slowly. Narrow aisles attracting lower margins encourage a lower foot flow. As a general rule fruit and vegetables are located close to the main entrance to suggest to the consumer that products are fresh and at their prime condition. There is no set average as to how long a consumer will shop, as different shoppers have different needs. A customer popping in for a quick shop on the way home from work is guided to those products which will best suit him or her, but in a way in which add-on purchases are encouraged.

According to this site it's 2.5 hours a week.

New Year colours

What are some colours commonly associated with New Year's day? Intelligentsium 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New years, in my culture at least, doesn't have any colour associated with it. It's often celebrated with fireworks and spectacular displays, so if you're trying to think of a colour scheme, sparkles, multi-colours or shiny things might be a theme you could work off. In terms of other cultures, for Chinese New Year, red is a common colour because of its association with good fortune. Steewi (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many Christian churches have Liturgical colours; in many western-rite churches (Including Roman Catholic and many Protestant churches), January 1st falls during Christmastide (the time period between Christmas Day and the Epiphany, aka the 12 days of Christmas. The traditional liturgical color for this time period is White. --Jayron32 04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say silver is common among New Years decorations at the party store but I don't know of any deep association of colors like for Christmas and Easter. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight blue seems to be common. Woogee (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say tartan because of all the Scottish connections with the celebration....hotclaws 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tartans come in many colours. Red, green, blue and black would be the most predominant ones. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clock with second hand

It seems that, in the popular conception, the exact position of the minute hand on an analog clock with a second hand is independent of the number of seconds past the last full minute. This despite that actual analog clocks (rather than animated images of such clocks) typically do not behave in such a fashion.

See here: [[1]]

Also, in the movie "Law Abiding Citizen", when a "real" clock was counting the seconds to 6:00, the minute and second hands behaved in precisely this manner.

Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.236.124 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely on the construction of the clock. Some clocks "click over" a full minute only after the second hand passes the twelve, and some move the minute hand gradually in 1 second intervals between each minute, much like the relationship between the minute and the hour hand. It really just depends on which kind of clock you have. --Jayron32 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? And what kind of clocks would those be? I have Asperger's syndrome; I pay attention to these things, and I'd think I would have noticed by now. Your run of the mill cheapo wall clock or alarm clock certainly would not do something so fancy as making the hands behave differently for one specific second out of the minute. I have owned a number of watches with hour, minute, and second hands, and none of them seemed to treat the last second of the minute as "special" in this manner, either. (I am ignoring the "extra" dials on a watch with more than basic timekeeping functions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.236.124 (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll often see it in public clocks (at railway stations etc) where all three hands are controlled by a central source. Tevildo (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In certain countries, that is. The railway stations where I remember encountering this type of clock are in Switzerland and at least one of Germany and/or Austria. Specifically, the second hand sweeps the complete circle in 58 seconds, not 60; then it stops for 2 seconds and in the middle of those 2 seconds the minute hand jumps forward. Being used to the type of clock where the minute hand advances continuously, or to digital clocks, I always find it a bit misleading.
I will also note that in many clocks that have a second hand and a continuously advancing minute hand, the two hands are not really coupled. It's entirely possible for the minute have to be 1/3 of the way, or other random amount, from 20 to 21 past the hour while the second hand is pointing straight up. In other words, the second hand is provided only in case you want to time something in seconds, and not for showing the complete time accurate to the second. My impression is that this is more common than clocks where the hands actually are coupled. --Anonymous, 06:28:10 UTC, December 31, 2009.

I tried to find a real one on youtube but was unsuccessful. I know I've seen it before, for sure in Back to the Future, but that might have been contrived. (You can see it at about the 15 second mark of this trailer:[2]) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are clocks whose minute hands jump once a minute. But unless they have second hands as well, they are irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. BTW, I went to one school which had a master clock system, with no second hands on the slave clocks, in which the slave hands would jump once a minute (when the system was working); and another school which also had a master clock system, but with second hands on the slave clocks, and in which the slave hands (all three of them) would move continuously except from time to time during a synching operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.236.124 (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some quick research, I found that the Omega X-33 watch apparently has a second hand that "ticks" every second and a minute hand that "ticks" every 30 seconds. Not exactly what you are looking for, but it isn't a "continuous motion" minute hand. You're looking for a similar set up, but where the minute hand "ticks" every 60 seconds. If you can make a watch do it twice a minute, I suppose you could make it work once a minute. --Jayron32 05:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of purpose as much as it's a matter of function. In order to get the hour hand from number 3 to number 4, for instance, the small hand could either make a jump at once or move gradually over the course of an hour -- the latter scheme is probably easier to work into the gears, seeing how jumping an entire number at once would require a sweep of 30º of the face at one time. To make a minute hand jump 6º is much more easily worked into the gears. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My kitchen clock cost me, I think, $7.95 at Fry's a couple years ago. It syncs itself to WWVB every day or two, so it's within an RCH of the correct time always. The minute hand jerks every fifteen seconds. If I weren't retired, I'd actually care about time intervals shorter than a morning. PhGustaf (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Chong, from an old Cheech and Chong bit: "I'm not into time, Man." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the minute hand on my Casio watch moves forward every 20 seconds, so it does vary considerably from one manufacturer to another.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a specific term for the differences in how the hands tick off time, whether it is done continuously or in discrete units. We even have some kind of mention of it in an article, I recall. But I can't remember the term itself! Someone at a good watch store would probably know. It was invented in the 19th century. It is not as easy as continuous movement but was considered more fashionable. I was once asked to look it up, and I did, but that was probably a year ago. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think there is. My first stop was at the clock article, but it didn't seem to lead to an answer. I went looking for Big Ben and other clocks in google, but it seemed like all the clips started just as the clock was starting to chime noon or whatever, so it wasn't possible to tell. However, maybe someone here who lives in London could say with some certainty whether the minute hand "sweeps" or "jumps". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the original question, I agree that there are two factors in the faulty perception of real analogue clocks. The first is simply a lack of observation by those at the opposite end of the Asperger's spectrum. The second is the influence of digital-drive clocks over the last forty years (including the master-clock system which was the earliest digital drive with analogue-type display). Strictly-speaking, I suppose that all clocks have a digital drive, though those sychronised to 50 or 60 Hz appear to have smooth movement. I remember watching (more than 50 years ago) the movement of the minute-hand of a grandfather clock where the tiny jumps each second were visible. The Big Ben clock is driven by a pendulum and escapement, so the tiny jumps every 2 seconds will be visible at close quarters, but from a distance it appears smooth. Perhaps film clocks deviate from reality just for dramatic effect. Dbfirs 14:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first watch, a cheap timex with the red and blue semi-circles and 5-minute markings, had a second hand and a minute hand that moved on once a minute. I know because I used to watch it really closely, so I could tell people the exact time. I used to wait until it had just ticked over, and the second hand was at the top, then match it to Big Ben at the beginning of the news. So, watches certainly exist that behave this way. It is true that most clocks I've watched do not. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the clocks I've noticed (here in Australia), the second hand moves 1/60th of the distance between each 'minute mark' every second... interesting stuff. — Deon ^talk 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most everything that happens in Australia happens wrong. It's about Coriolis force working backward. PhGustaf (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's negated if the clock is lined up with the south pole. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How old was the Timex watch? I have never seen a clockwork watch behave like that, but my first watch was a long time ago! On all the clockwork clocks and watches that I have ever taken apart, the minute hand is directly geared to the second hand (if it exists) and to the escapement, so that it moves a tiny amount every "tick" (varying from a fraction of a second to two seconds in the case of the Big Ben Clock). Digital mechanisms (with analogue displays) behave in various ways depending on the design. Some have cogs and behave exactly like a clockwork mechanism, others move pointers by a pulse which can be at any chosen interval. ... and you are looking at the face of Australian clocks from underneath! Dbfirs 17:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been bought about 1992 and was battery-powered, rather than wind-up. That battery lasted about 8 years. I could take the glass screen off using a suction cup and poke the little hands. It had a lively tick that I used to listen to at night, trying to train myself to count seconds. Ah, I loved that watch :) 86.176.48.114 (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I grumble at the current notion of an "analog" timepiece. Every clock since the water clock has just accumulated ticks of one sort or another (the conceptual distance between escapement ticks, tuning fork ticks, and crystal oscillator ticks being nil) and shown the count somehow. I find pointers easier to read than digits, but that's just me. PhGustaf (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that what you're saying is that every clock is "digital" in the sense that it counts something. And about digital clocks, i.e. with the numbers, it has been argued that recognition of what time it is takes longer, because you have to process it. Because typically you don't really want to know that it's 10:27 and 39 seconds. You want to know if your late for that 10:30 meeting - and a traditional analog clock will tell you "faster" than a digital clock will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that, Bugs? I've been making the same claim for years, but while I've found a few blogs and other unreliable sources that echo it, the only formal paper I saw on a quick google was this, which at first sight seems to contradict this. I don't think it does so, because I don't think they actually tested for the criterion that you (and I) think is most important - a sort of fuzzy comparison, but it doesn't support our case either. Some hard evidence would be very welcome (and could go in our sadly lacking digital clock article). --ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I read years ago. It could be outdated, because digital clocks are so pervasive nowadays; especially the younger generations, who would be used to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that nearly everyone agrees that analogue displays are quicker to read. I haven't found any academic research but, for example, the maufacturers, Stack claim: Stack believe that an analogue display is still superior in imparting some data quickly and accurately. The human brain can process information from analog displays far quicker than digital displays. An analogue display can tell you at a glance WHERE a value is, a digital display can only tell you WHAT the value is. This is why they are still used in cars and aircraft, even though the underlying information feed is more often than not digital.
There is an interesting discussion (with a pointer to references) at The Interactive Design Association and a Google Books reference in Basic Ship Theory Dbfirs 09:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Mr.98's question, the two types of mechanisms are the continuous and step (or stepwise) movements. There is a wikianswers article titled "How_many_times_do_the_hands_of_a_clock_overlap_in_a_day" mentioning those terms. My radio-controlled analog display watch has a minute hand that steps once every minute. The minute hand is sync'ed with the digital display of seconds. The only true "step" analog clock I have is my grandfather clock having a minute hand that moves a minute amount every tick. I guess that would make it 60 minutes per minute. Also, I agree that analog clocks present the "picture" of time and are easier to process. Digital timepieces are fine for coffee pots and microwaves, but they have no character, no beauty. Who could get excited about digital display tower clock? JackOL31 (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to say above, all normal clockwork clocks and watches have analogue display with minute hands that move a tiny amount every fraction of a second, depending on tick speed (two seconds for the clock which contains Big Ben). It's just that on a small clock, the jump is too small to be noticed. Electronic clock drives vary according to the step circuitry. "Mains" synchronous clocks are possibly the only type that have a continuous drive with smooth movement (the 50 or 60 hertz is used only for synchronisation of the miniature motor, not for pulsing). I agree fully about the aesthetics! Dbfirs 12:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understood that when you first mentioned it. However, there are two types of clock movements. They are step and continuous. Whether continuous encompasses true continuous and/or apparent continuous, I can't say. Here are some examples I found out on the web from various sites: "The conventional electronic timepieces have heretofore been designed to operate either in a stepwise hand-carrying manner or in a continuous hand-carrying manner", "Step Motion #M2: The most common movement for schools and hobbyists to produce clocks", and "Continuous Sweep #M6: This quality movement will make no ticking noise and the second hand sweeps around with no jumping". Maybe I'm missing something? JackOL31 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are at cross-purposes here. I was talking about traditional clockwork drives where the escapement mechanism means that there are steps of between a fraction of a second and two seconds. The two types of step motion that you mention are for electronic drives which, although digital, have a frequency of (typically) 32,768 Hz. These fast pulses are then used to jump the hands forward at various rates, and a fast rate looks continuous, though it is really tiny jumps. As far as I know, only "mains" clocks (now almost obsolete?) have a truly continuous drive. It would be possible, but unnecessarily complex and expensive, to use the electronic oscillations to regulate a synchronised motor to give a truly continuous movement in electronic clocks and watches, but this would increase the cost and bulk, and would reduce the accuracy. Electronic step circuitry can be designed to give any size of jump (usually 32,768 divided by a power of 2), either to emphasize the digital nature of the device or to give an excellent impression of perfectly smooth motion, or any option in between, according to user preference. Dbfirs 08:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I don't think I was ever in disagreement with your statements, so I was confused by the issue. A question was asked regarding the name of the other movement, which I answered as "step". Then I mentioned that the only true step analog clock I have (mechanical, not electric/electronic(battery) or as you say "traditional clockworks") was my grandfather clock. Since then I remembered I have a wind-up clock bought in a moment of nostalgia. I later determined that nostalgia lasts about 10 days! JackOL31 (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I see. You thought I was implying there was a mechanical continuous movement. Yes, I meant to say "mechanical" instead of "step" for the grandfather clock. JackOL31 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson

I am a big fan of michael jackson since childhood, was discussing with my friends about all the allgations that were charged on him regarding child abuse, just wanted know to that did he ever admit that charge if yes, then in which interview or where would i find that if its written somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He never admitted to child molestation, and I have gotten to be of the opinion that those charges were false - cooked up by parents who wanted to make money off Michael (some of whom did), who was certainly an eccentric character but that's not unusual among artists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So right....... i was giving the same opinion to my frens, i believe the same thing.. thank u so much... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.228.59.66 (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that he did admit to sleeping with kids. But not to touching them inappropriately. I think there was an interview he did with a British TV guy in which he talked about that. That interview was attempted to be used as evidence when he was brought to trial. But it didn't fly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

10:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If u can give any idea which year that interview was done with him, that would be helpful

The journalist was Martin Bashir, and the interviews took place in 2002-03. See Living with Michael Jackson. Tevildo (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya beat me to it. It's mentioned in the Bashir article and also in the Jackson article, in connection with the most recent trial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this goes without saying, but since Baseball Bugs gave the only answer, I'll point out to the OP that very few people actually know what happened between Jackson and those kids. BB's "answer" is pure speculation, and shouldn't be taken seriously. The Wikipedia reference desk is not the place for people's personal opinions. Staecker (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it another way: There is NO EVIDENCE that Michael Jackson ever molested anyone. Supposition that he did is equally speculative - and the famous trial resulted in a "not guilty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There's evidence that he acted in a way that most people consider creepy and inappropriate with other people's children, without apparently realising how this behaviour was viewed. We have no evidence either way as to whether he molested anyone. On the one hand, he did pay parents off who took him to trial, but that could as easily be because of the damage to his image. On the other hand, we all saw how sure people were that he was lying about the skin disease, whereas the coroner tells us that it was all true. The court of public opinion is cruel and often inaccurate. The overall picture from things like the Bashir interview is of a man I wouldn't trust alone with children, but not because I think he'd molest them or do anything on purpose. 86.176.48.114 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paying off parents can also be a lot cheaper than an actual court case. I am sure his lawyer's would have taken in a lot more money than he paid off the parents with. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it said that the mafia asked him for money failing which they would ruin him by falsely accusing him of child molestation. He didn't respond so they carried through their plot. There is a blind musician whom they also threatened (don't know what with) as a result of which he has written no more music. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post baseless rumor or speculation on the Reference Desk. Livewireo (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Identification

I have seen a picture of a big castle on the coast or an island that I can't find anymore. I think the island is really rocky and there are huge boulders in the ocean with waves crashing around and a huge castle on top of the cliff/island. I thought this was a pretty famous place, but I can't seem to find it in my searches now. It's not Mont Saint-Michel, though it looks kind of like that place. Any ideas? Tex (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a photo or perhaps painting, that might aid us in determining the specific castle. I have found a few that might meet your criteria, but two of the possibilities I found are currently in ruins. Googlemeister (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There's St Michael's Mount and Lindisfarne Castle for starters, although neither castle is huge. Mikenorton (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(to GM) Yeah, unfortunately I don't have any idea how to find the picture again without knowing the name of the castle so I can't show it to you! (to Mike) I don't think either of those two are what I'm looking for. It might be Mont Saint-Michel, but my memory has waves crashing around it and this looks like very shallow water with no waves. I think the island and rocks were blackish if that helps anyone. Thanks again. Tex (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a photo then? And did the castle seem in good condition? Googlemeister (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almourol Castle perhaps? Googlemeister (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw a photo of this place and it appeared to be in very good condition. At least it wasn't in ruins or anything. The Almourol Castle isn't it, either. I did a google image search and did not see what I'm looking for after looking through hundreds of castles, so I may have just imagined it. Thanks for trying. Tex (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Bamburgh Castle? Marco polo (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marco, nice try, but that's not it either. Any other ideas? Tex (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At high tide in stormy weather Mont Saint-Michel is surrounded by waves. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC the castle from the Tintin comic The Black Island is a drawing of a real castle. Perhaps it could be that one? --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this castle - Eilean Donan Castle in Scotland? Astronaut (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... or Dunnottar Castle, also in Scotland. Astronaut (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Stalker, AKA the Castle Aargh? Acroterion _(talk) 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first association was also the Tintin cover suggested by Saddhiyama . The French article on L'Île Noire mentions Phare de l'île Noire (facing the Château du Taureau) as well as the Île d'Or, the Vieux-château de l'Île d'Yeu, and the Lochranza Castle as possible sources of Hergé's inspiration. Another one I thought of is Mont Orgueil (See here for a more dramatic illustration). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunvegan Castle perhaps? Tantallon Castle described in the book Guide To Castles In Britain as "one of the most famous and romantic of Scottish castles". There is also a listing on the internet somewhere of every castle in Britain. Despite Hamlet, I'm not sure if they also have castles in Scandinavia. There are some in other countries, including the Crusader castles. Can you describe what the windows look like - where they normal-sized windows or little slits? Was the top crenelated? Was there anything between the castle and the sea - rock or grass? Did the castle have towers - how many? What sort of shape was it? Round towers or square towers? How big was the castle? Could the picture have been a photo-montage or a fantasy image of some kind? Was the castle in good enough condition for people to be living in it? The problem is that the same castle will look very different according to the direction it is photographed in, including looking complete from some directions and ruined from others, being above a cliff or on dry land. The Wikipedia photos of castles tend to be taken from the car-park rather than from a boat at sea looking onshore. One of the photos of Tantallon Castle in the distance in the Wikipedia article looks like what you have described. 78.146.210.81 (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These Wikipedia articles support the notion that Scandinavians have castles: Castles in Norway, List of castles in Sweden, List of castles and palaces in Denmark, List of castles in Finland. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course there are Scandinavian castles. Shakespeare (whoever he was) set Hamlet in Elsinore. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you guys are good. Unfortunately none of those are the one I'm looking for! Mr. 78.146, I wish I could remember more details, but it seems to me the castle was right at the edge with only rocks between it and the ocean. I don't remember how many towers or what the windows look like. I'm beginning to think I just saw a rather dramatic picture of Mont Saint-Michel, but I can't seem to find the picture I'm remembering. I'm 99% sure it was a real castle, not a fantasy pic or anything. Oh well, you guys have shown me a lot of interesting castles, so I guess this little excersize was worth something! Thanks! Tex (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tintagel..??..hotclaws 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You remind me of this stunning painting] by Rene Magritte. It's on a massive canvas and is truly striking.

how much?

How much did Nolan Ryan pay for the Round Rock Express in 2003? Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of figures at the bottom of this site, which is the closest I've found thus far. If it helps your search, Ryan didn't purchase the Round Rock Express, he (and some other investors) purchased the Jackson Generals and moved them to Round Rock. Matt Deres (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go. $5 million according to this LA Times article. Matt Deres (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure, according to that article, the Jackson Generals were the AA team for Houston. That describes the Corpus Christi Hooks (also owned by Ryan). The Express used to be in Edmonton unless I have been misinformed. Googlemeister (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wiki database

I am planning to start a site related to cooking tip and recipes.I would like to know from where i can download the latest dump of Wikipedia .The link that is already available from your site is confusing for me .I am in need of sql dumps on cooking alone if possible else on the whole with other subject(articles).can you please give me a url that will help me download the database directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.200.80 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://download.wikimedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And would you prefer to download from Wikipedia or Wikibooks:Cookbook:Table of Contents? Nanonic (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates and Ninjas

What caused the whole pirate and ninja phenomenon to break out? Was there one defining thing (Television show, etc), or did someone just think it would be a cool idea if a pirate and a ninja fought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.15.164 (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Pirates versus Ninjas. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]