Miscellaneous desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 16 >

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.

February 15

Goalkeeping brothers?

Hi all - a quick thought... have any two brothers ever both been goalkeepers at the higher levels of football? The sport is littered with brothers who have both played in the outfield (the Charltons being perhaps the most famous pair), but how about 'keepers? By "higher level" I'm thinking a someh=where in a national league set-up or international level. Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha? 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is entry level google-fu: [1]. Lots of links, including Viktor and Vyacheslav Chanov who played keepers for the USSR 1982 World Cup team. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT DOES RECESSION ACTUALLY MEANS ???

I am confused with some questions, so please somebody give me explanation. According to me, if somebody sell somebody buy, so money is going from one to another. So how the problem to economic is coming. In the way i am saying that, money is there with somebody, maybe he is keeping it safe. And suddenly why nodoby is interested in buying any things, slowly it affects all of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.228.67 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a family wants to buy a house and later they want to sell it. If prices go up, they will sell and make a profit. if prices go down, they will take a loss.

Until two years ago, houseing prices were going up very high, very fast. Many people borrowed money from banks to buy houses they could not afford. As long as prices kept on going up, they could sell the houses, pay off the loans, and keep the profits.

Eventually prices became so high that people were not buying any more. People who had houses they could not afford lost a lot of money. They could not pay the banks back the money they borrowed, so the banks took their houses.

Houseing prices were going down very low, very fast. Sometimes the banks could only sell the houses at a price lower than the loans, so the banks lost a lot of money too.

The banks could not afford to lend any more money to businesses. When businesses could not get new loans, they had three choices. They could raise their prices, they could lower the wages of their workers, or they could go out of business.

If they went out of business, they could not pay the old loans back to the banks, and many banks went out of business too.

If this combination of prices going up, wages going down, businesses going bankrupt, and people fearing for their jobs, lasts for more than half a year, it is called recession. Phil_burnstein (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economists and politicians may use a number of definitions for the term 'recession', but the most common and straightforward is the one at the beginning of our article on recessions:

[A] recession is a decline in a country's gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.

In other words, if a country's economy shrinks – as measured by the size of its gross domestic product – for a sustained period, it is considered to be in recession. Literally, the size of its economy is receding. The other signs that Phil Burnstein talks about (wage declines, inflation, poor credit availability, etc.) may be causes or effects of recession, but they aren't usually part of the definition.

You write "money is there with somebody." True enough, but the notion that money, in itself, is that important went out with merchantilism at the end of the 18th century. As all the responders have indicated, it is the circulation of money that is critical. B00P (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: You sell something that costs one dollar, I buy it and give you a dollar. The next day you take the dollar and you buy something. The dollar has been used to buy two things. Later the person you bought from takes the dollar and buys something else. Now the same dollar has bought three things. As this goes on, at the end of the year the one dollar could buy a hundred things.

Manwhile the dollar that has been kept safe only bought one thing. We say that it has circulated once. The other dollar may have circulated through the economy one hundred times. The more money circulates, the richer everybody will be. If people are afraid and don't buy so much, the circulation goes down. If the circulation gets slower, and it keeps on being slower for a long time, this is called recession. Phil_burnstein (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than dancing around the definition, let's cut to the chase: a recession is a prolonged decline in the volume (number) of transactions in an economy. Fewer retail sales lead to fewer wholesale purchases which lead to less production (or, imports for a post-manufacturing economy) which leads to less hiring (more layoffs) which reduces the amount of money available for retail purchases. When all of this is very deep, very long and accompanied by a general decline in prices, then it becomes a depression. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little adjustment: it's a decrease in the 'value' of transactions (price [in "real" or non-inflationary terms] * volume)(including production that isn't sold to anyone) in the economy. NByz (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What prospects are there (if any) of a peaceful and rational accommodation of islamic intolerance of other faiths.

I don't want to start an argument here on Wiki as I have too much respect for the site and its subscribers. But I am genuinely curious to know whether the current apparent fervour in the Islamicist movement towards world domination can ever be peacefully resolved so as to produce an outcome inclusively tolerant to other faiths - or whether the likelihood - as in previous drives in pursuit of world domination - is more likely to end in a world war and utter - though not absolute - devastation, that will ensue and eventually bring about some kind of peace? 92.23.80.2 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do speculation here. We can look up facts - but I don't think there is evidence to be found either way. Sorry. SteveBaker (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SteveBaker. An e/c with you just saved me from posting something far less assumptive of good faith. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I read those responses and am not in the least bit surprised at them, so I will ask a supplementary here - can (and will) anyone here direct me to a site where I can investigate the prospects (and hopefully, the possibilities) of a peaceful accord (or otherwise) emerging from the current absolutist islamicist drive towards world domination, in the sincere personal hope that such an outcome (based on historic precedents) can indeed emerge? Thanks in anticipatiion.92.23.80.2 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your question is based on a false assumption. There isn't any great Islamic intolerance of other faiths, there are just a few power hungry (and very persuasive and manipulative) people that happen to be Islamic and have chosen Islam (or, at least, something that masquerades as Islam) as a means to gain power. --Tango (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tango, I really appreciate your prompt response - but please don't be offended at my asking you to give me some credible references for your apparently opinion-based answer. It's not that I don't believe you are correct (in point of fact I hope you are correct) - it's just that I want to have some hard and reliable evidential material that I can hang my hat on. Thanks again. 92.20.42.16 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for your assumption. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I just watched a copy of the FITNA video that was sent to me by a reliable contact - and what I saw was so graphic, horrendous, bloodthirsty, lacking in any human grace, and frankly scary, that the absolutism contained therein made me hope and trust that someone here in Wiki would have a reference site that would persuade me that the message contained in the video had been challenged and hopefully denied as representative of Islam, by the Islamic Faith leaders, whomsoever they may be. Does that persuade you or would you like a copy of the video? 92.20.42.16 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What pity your manifest intolerance (and that of Geert Wilders) turns your question into xenophonic jingoism. I believe that a supremacist Nazi forum may be more suitable to your ideology. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is grossly unfair to assume that all Muslims want to "conquer the world" and "eliminate the infadels" simply because certain Muslims have adopted that particular way of thinking. That said, I believe that Western society in general is just as against Muslim society as certain Muslims are against the West. If fingers are going to be pointed, then they must be pointed in both directions. Either both sides must realize that they have to work together to solve the problem, or the bloodshed will go on for time eternal, or at least until one side is simply worn away to practically nothing and is unable to keep up the fight. Let me ask this: how many humans do you want to see die just so that you can "prove" (by strength of numbers alone) that your side is "right"? --Ericdn (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt and energetic response Cookatoo - but what does it mean? You accuse me of zenophobia when all I seek is guidance - you accuse me of naziism when all I seek is acceptance and tolerance and understanding for all people, races, and cultures during a very real, pertinent and current threat to the ideals I (and multitudes of other humans) hold so dear. Why do you attack me when I am the innocent bystander and observer of this great trouble and NOT the perpetrator? Why not explain to me why I as the OP must subject myself to the oppressive messages portrayed in FITNA, without question or challenge? I really would appreciate a shaft of your brilliant light of understanding and perception being shone upon me to illuminate the darkness that you believe exists in my mind. I look forward to your considered response. And let us not forget Ken Bigley. 92.22.50.198 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the case that you "must subject yourself to the oppressive messages portrayed in FITNA", or in anything else. The moment you see something you don't like, you have the power to turn it off or leave the room. You can question and challenge anything you disagree with. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack, I appreciate that - BUT - here on Wikipedia it seems that when I question or challenge an offensive (to me at least) stance made by others - it is apparently fair play for respondents to accuse me of being zenophobic and a nazi - and all subsequent criticism of my legitimate question is directed at me. Dear God - I have to get out of here - I have just realised something sinister is going on................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.50.198 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me briefly quote from your postings, number 92: "what prospects (if any)", "islamic intolerance", "fervour towards world domination", "absolutist islamicist drive" and so on.

And yet, you require some "hard and reliable evidential material" in your search for "acceptance and tolerance and understanding for all people, races, and cultures" ?

I don´t know where you learned your dialectic, but it bears some improvement. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are very tolerant of questions about pretty much anything here (baring homework and requests for medical and legal advice). The problem isn't your question, it's the assumption implied in your question. If you had asked "Do all Muslims want to take over the world?" we would have happily answered your question (and probably found some statistics to back up our answer). But you didn't ask that, you just assumed they did and asked what could be done about it. --Tango (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Fitna or Geert Wilders before until I read about the discussion here, but from the sounds of it the OP sounds pretty open minded to get some proof for or against his assumption that he has made. Yet instead of providing references to reason and justify the premise made that number92 is wrong, labels were instead slapped on him and he was scared away...I'm sorry, but since when did Wikipedians call people names and scare them away before providing links/book references/other citations to educate an OP, no matter how misled we think they are? --JDitto (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or just gently pointing out that Islamic and Islamicist aren't interchangeable? almost-instinct 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed Benazir Bhutto's last book. It addresses this topic. NByz (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By no means was the OP open-minded. His/her question was an object example of ingenuousness and 'begging the question'. Cookatoo and Tango were harsh, but called the real issue here accurately. It wasn't an enquiry, it was a basic agent provocateur gambit, and a lazy one, to boot. Even the Fitna article itself links to Beyond Fitna, and many other responses are available online that my cat could have googled. Evidently, the OP's true objective was neither information nor enlightenment. I hope this is not a person who is touring forums merely in order to start anti-Islamic threads (as I have seen done elsewhere), but a new/unregistered user who disappears when no-one bites is a dispiriting symptom. Oh well, s/he will be satisfied by at least raising the profile of Geert Wilders' film. Centrepull (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles that, while perhaps not directly answering the question asked, might be useful for the OP: Islamophobia, Liberal movements within Islam, and International reaction to Fitna. Pfly (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been a case in history where a movement towards world domination has been peacefully resolved so as to produce an outcome inclusively tolerant to other faiths? If not, I would rate the prospects of it happening now as being rather small. Phil_burnstein (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Islam have both been fairly tolerant of other faiths at various times and places. Algebraist 10:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have not seen Fitna, I have heard it is more of a propaganda film in that it is very one-sided. I can see where this discussion is going. And yes, feel free to ask around on Stormfront, I'm sure they'll give you the answer you're looking for. ;) Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 11:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who makes the decisions about names on British road-signs?

Does anyone know which governmental body/bodies makes decisions about which names are applied to which location? For example in the inner sections of a city a road sign might directions to the "City Centre", but in the outskirts the signs might instead say "Manchester". Who sets these rules? And how do they reach their decisions? almost-instinct 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be either the Highways Agency or the local council. (Probably the former for motorways and other major roads and the latter for the more local roads.) --Tango (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More likely a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.--Artjo (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly illogical. On the outskirts you want confirmation that the place you are entering is the city you expect (in this example Manchester) and then once you are 'in' the city you want directions to the 'city centre' - if it kept saying "Manchester" it would be confusing as that is where you are. I'm sure there are examples of confusing road-signs but the setup of city-name on outskirs, city-centre in the inner area makes sense to me. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it isn't at all illogical. However I would still like to know who makes the decision, and what criteria they are using. For example, in one part of the City of Leeds you see signs to "City Centre" and in another part of the City of Leeds you see signs to "Leeds". And it always makes sense. So: does a central body give guidelines to local authorities on how to make the decisions? Somebody, somewhere in the governmental system is making these decisions, and I would like to know the "who" and the "why". Clearly in unitary authorities, esp. those called "City of ...", that contain large quantities of rural land the concept of being "'in' the city" is a complex business; if someone in government has come up with some rules, that would be interesting. almost-instinct 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking about Leeds as I thought about bad uses of the phrase city centre on signs... being that Leeds is contiguous with several other sizable places, there are several signs in the areas in between, say, Leeds and Bradford that I found myself wondering exactly which city centre I was being pointed to. In most cases it is indeed logical, but I agree that i'd be interested to hear what the rules surrounding this are and who decides it. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! Hadn't thought of that problem! Excellent point almost-instinct 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official(s) I'd like to get hold of are the ones who start signing, and then miss a crucial junction.86.202.27.179 (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

And the signs in France are set at 45 degrees so straight on or turn left ? Also the French sign the next town or towns,. not the final destination. So to get from Paris, say, to Marseilles one needs to know the names of the towns en route (except on the autoroutes). Also, while I am banging on, why do the French name airports and railway stations by the village where they are, and not the city they serve? So Gharles de Gaule is not Paris, it Oissey! Sort that out!86.202.27.179 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Ahem... that's Roissy. But aren't the French right? The Charles de Gaulle International Airport is at Roissy, and not at Paris, which is 25 kilometres away. Strawless ^(talk) 23:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Heathrow and Gatwick were renamed "London" there could be a problem. —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess strategies

Hello there. Since I am a chess player (at the moderate-advanced level) and have been doing this, I must know: Is playing against yourself in chess a way to possibly improve your playing? Thanks. :) --DocDeel516 ^discuss 21:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love chess too! While playing against yourself can be quite amusing for some time, I've learned from my own personal experience that looking up a few chess chess problems and setting them up on my board and attempting to solve them to be much more productive. If you have limited access to the internet, I suggest checking out some chess problem books from your neighborhood library. --JDitto (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playing against a computer definitely helps, of course. Tempshill (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does (playing against yourself). To keep sharp, your opponent needs to play unexpected moves and when you play yourself, you can't help but make response moves your other self already thought through when he made them. I'd stick with playing against a computer or real people. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays (as Tempshill has suggested) any good chess program on a computer will be a more challenging opponent. Strawless ^(talk) 23:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no, mostly no. Grandmasters, in developing new lines, begin by trying to refute their own innovations. Of course, they already know all the standard variations backwards and forwards. Since you are not in their league, and don't know every line in ECO, this doesn't apply to you.

A more useful technique, beside the obvious "play, play, play," might be to get a game collection - in print or online - of a great player with a particularly clear style - Capablanca, Tarrasch, and Keres, among others, come to mind. Play over their games from their side of the board, one move at a time, covering up their moves. Looking at the position, come up with the move you would play, then see what they actually played. If different, determine why they did what they did; most books include commentary to explain. If you've got a computer that will allow you to start from a random position, set it up to respond to what you would have done. Are you dropping a piece? getting forked? skewered? or maybe just wasting time?

Another possibility is correspondence chess. You get three days to make your move, and thus have plenty of opportunity to "play against yourself" by trying to see if there are any holes in your play before you actually post the move.

Have fun. B00P (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

soda pop book

Hi, my bottle of soda pop spilled on my favorite book while it was in my backpack and now it doesn't just have the soda's orangey color on over one side of all the pages but its also sticky and smelly from the sugar! I'm going over it right now with the hair dryer, but I realize that this isn't going to do anything to fix the color stains or the stickiness. It's only a softcover, so should I dunk it back in water to try and wash it away, or will it this harm the book even more? --JDitto (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience, I'm afraid you're kinda screwed. Trying to wash it away will make it worse. The only thing I can tell you is that next time, make sure your bottle is tightly screwed shut so that it doesn't spill and ruin your valuables. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 22:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if the pop cap isn't screwed, then your book will be. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks for the warning! But out of curiousity, how will the water make the book even worse than what it is? --JDitto (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's never going to be good as new, and adding water could end up destroying it. But if the alternative is throwing it away, you might as well try, right? Paperback books don't instantly dissolve in water - some divers who have long decompression stops to do have been known take books down with them to read while they wait. What the water does do is make them very much more fragile, but if you're gentle with it while it's wet you should be able to avoid tearing it. What I would do is soak the affected pages in lukewarm water for an hour or so, giving it a gentle swill round with my hand occasionally to move the sugar-saturated water away from the book. If the spine isn't dirty then keeping it out of the water is probably a good idea. Then take the book out and let it dry naturally somewhere warm but not too hot. The big problem will be preventing the pages sticking together - if it's only a few, perhaps try putting kitchen paper between them while drying? (I've never tried this.) Good luck with it. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c because of faulty connection) Ditto what the user above me said. But personally, I recommend leaving it as it is. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the cost of paperback books, unless this specific book has sentimental value or the title is ridiculously overpriced, I'd recommend buying a new copy and trashing the old one. As far as lessons go, $10 is a relative steal. – 74 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the pages and ink aren't water soluble, it seems that some of the glues used at the binding are, so avoid getting that wet, as previously stated. The wet pages will never quite be flat again, but that might be a less serious problem than being soaked with orange pop. Another suggestion, if it's only a few pages, is to use a copier to copy them from a good book (maybe at the library), cut the ruined pages out of your book, and insert the replacement pages in their place. Perhaps you could staple them in. This will look bad, but might make it more readable and less smelly. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the pages of the book might stick together before they dry, which could be a problem. ~A H 1^(TCU) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would NOT reccommend wetting the pages of a book, as the ink will smear and the book will be illegible. Honestly, even if you lick your thumb and wipe it across the writing in certain books, the writing smudges. So water is kinda out of the equasion. ;) Queenie ^Talk 21:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a librarian's advice on drying your book after cleaning, from the University of Delaware: [2] — FIRE!^{in a crowded theatre...} 23:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]