Miscellaneous desk
< February 21	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 23 >

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 22

Google Help

Is there anyway to contact Google for general help and not about a specific product? I'm just looking for something like a general help contact form for Google. --72.195.153.210 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to have an easy-to-find contact form for the main search engine itself. The most general contact/help page I could find was the one for Google accounts, but first check to see if the Google Cheat Sheet has what you're looking for. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe this may be what you're looking for. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone here can help, if you are willing to post the question. - Akamad (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most pictures of one person

I don't know if this one can be factually proven one way or another. Who in history has had the most pictures of their face reproduced? My nomination would be Queen Elizabeth II. Her face is on every single coin in a whole heap of different countries (UK, Australia, NZ, etc). Could there be any other contenders? I suppose perhaps Jesus Christ, but does he count if no-one knows what he looked like? Thanks everyone!!!121.44.57.245 (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My money would be on George Washington. He was appearing on notes and coins long before Queen Elizabeth was born. LANTZY ^TALK 04:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says here that Queen Elizabeth might be the winner.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington is only on two denominations of US coin as far as I know: the Washington quarter in most or all years since 1932 and the first presidential $1 coin in 2007 only. Queen Elizabeth II has been on coins since 1953, and in the countries that do it, she's on all denominations. And at last some of the paper money too (in Canada she was on all denominations for a while, then we put past prime ministers on the $5, $10, $50, and $100, then they stopped making the $1, $2, and $1,000, so that leaves only the $20 with the Queen on it), but Washington $1 bills in the US do go back much further.

Doesn't she also appear as a small image on British postage stamps? Those get used once and discarded, unlike money, but I don't know how production figures compare. --Anonymous, 07:11 UTC, February 22, 2009.

As the main, and sole, image on the vast majority (if not all) of them. That link says there have been 180 billion stamps with her face on it. (I've always thought it odd that the country that invented the postage stamp has always been so ... non-creative with their philatelic designs. But that's neither here nor there as far as this question is concerned.) Then, as the questioner says, she's been on every single coin in every Commonwealth ~~country~~ realm for 55 years, and on many of those nations' banknotes for the same time. Australia (and some/all? other Commonwealth ~~countries~~ realms) have always had the current monarch's face on the lowest denomination note, but curiously, Elizabeth II was the first UK sovereign whose face appeared on British banknotes. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you're exaggerating. She isn't the queen of a majority of Commonwealth countries, including seven of the eight most populous ones. I'm sure there are many that don't put her on their coins; a quick check shows that India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and South Africa (the four most populous) don't, anyway. --Anonymous, 00:33 UTC, February 23, 2009.

I did, of course, mean to say Commonwealth realms, not Commonwealth countries. Thanks for the correction. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think she may well be on all of them. I inherited several stamp albums, and from what I can see, if she's not the main image then she's a silhouette in the corner. There are a couple of exceptions - I've found one (this one) that's split vertically, half with the Post Office Tower and half with her face. She always seems to be there somewhere, though.— Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 09:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legal requirement that the Monarch's head appear on British coins, notes and stamps.86.202.25.99 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

British postage stamps are the only ones not to have the name of the issuing country on them. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do film frames count? Imagine how many pictures of an actor were generated from a movie. One per frame, 24 per second. 15000 a copy for a mere 10 minutes of screen time. This article mentions 35 million VHS copies of the Star Wars films. 10 minutes of screen time per movie would be half a trillion little pictures for just the VHS copies of those three films. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Film frames might (arguably) count - but I think waveforms on a VHS tape is a bit of a stretch. After all - I could create a few billion pictures of myself on my computer in a fairly short amount of time...then you'd have to say that I won. SteveBaker (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While your argument is good, you need more then a few billion to win. Of course it still won't take too long. If I used a 0.05 megabyte image being written to memory at 5000 MB/s that's 100000 in 1 second. In 10 days I'd have written 86400000000 images, probably enough to win. With high end modern GPUs having massive amounts of memory bandwidth (e.g. 159 gigabytes/s for the GTX285) and given that even a 10k JPEG should be recognisable you could easily do 100+ times that, surely definitely enough to win. It also depends how you define an image. After all you could write an image and then just keep writing 1 and say it means the previous image (which is partly how video compression works) which shows how meaningless it is Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - so the average color of a picture of myself is 0x85386A - I'm now going to claim that all pixels of that color everywhere in the world are in fact very low resolution 1x1 pixel portraits of myself. I win! :-P SteveBaker (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to compete you could just do it the same way as Elizabeth and print tiny pictures serially on sheets. That's how banknotes and stamps are produced. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving money aside, I'm not sure that he would beat Elizabeth but Colonel Sanders must be high on the list. I don't eat fried chicken but I worked at a mall for a time when I was in university and there was a KFC in the food court. His picture was on everything: the box, the napkins, the cups, the ketchup packets etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the restaurant today produces more images of him on a yearly basis than are produced of the Queen. Although the gap would be wider in the past when KFC had fewer locations, simpler packaging and she was the Queen of more places. Although I suppose he may well surpass her after she dies. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going by annual rate, I see more than a billion standard UK coins were minted in 2007 [1] and a little less than a billion Bank of England banknotes are usually printed [2]. More than a billion last year, but then the new £20 note was being phased in. Add in Bank of Scotland notes, and money alone is easily giving us more than 2 billion pictures of the Queen every year on mainland Britain. Add to that stamps (surely at least a billion?) and then start thinking about places other than that one island.

KFC claim to serve nearly 8 million customers a day [3] on a global basis. Assume we can extrapolate that up to 2.8 billion customers a year. Assume each customer has a napkin, a cup, a box, fries. 4 pictures per customer? May be a little generous (some of those customers won't be having a full meal), but it probably works out (with the ketchup packets). 11.2 billion pictures printed a year, assuming all locations print pictures of the guy on everything. So, which is printing at a higher rate depends on whether Canada, Australia and the rest are printing more than 8 billion images of her per year. (I have ignored commemorative plates, coins, mugs etc, as negligible. An assumption on my part.)

From Australia, looks like we can expect at least half a billion coins a year [4] plus nearly 300 million notes (on an upward trend) [5], so money gives us about another billion from Australia. I don't know about Australian stamps. So, 7 billion to go.

She has appeared on various Australian stamps over the years, but her visage on our stamps is far from the norm. I'd say that's true for every Commonwealth realm except the UK. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada. Looks like [6] about 1.8 billion coins, banknotes are more tricky since she's only on the $20. Since the Bank of Canada doesn't want to tell me how many notes it prints annually, I'll have to guess based on other countries and say total notes is probably roughly the same as total coins, but not many of them will be $20. Perhaps we can say Canada is producing about 2 billion portraits of the Queen on its money every year, and again I don't know about stamps although this [7] would suggest we could easily add at least another billion. Oops, except I had my UK head on :P So, 5 billion to go.

New Zealand: not a lot, although [8] suggests that with coins and the few notes featuring her, we could be looking at nearly another half billion.

But wait! This otherwise grim little document from the Royal Mail [9] (you would think 'number of stamps printed' would make for an easy fact on some kiddy-friendly page, but noooooo) suggests we can easily increase our UK stamp estimate to at least cover the gap (bottom of page 4). So, I'm making QE2 the winner on an annual-rate basis, but there doesn't seem to be a lot in it. Of course, there are many assumptions present in this. I would estimate that other sources would eventually give her an edge of a billion or more per year, but I don't have documentation for this.

This public service announcement brought to you by the back of the most epic envelope ever. Or perhaps several million napkins. 79.66.56.21 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

music in Dollhouse

What is the song in the opening credits for Dollhouse? see here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2009

The site TV Show Music says it's "What You Don't Know" by Jonatha Brooke, as does our article on her. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Train enthusiast

On the television show Psych last night the used a word for train enthusiast that I cannot find. Since I erased it from my DVR I cannot review the tape. The word starts with an F and is pretty long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.171.89 (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2009

Ferroequinology (or -ist) is the word you're looking for I think. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love it. Should we now refer to car enthusiasts by the term "Sansequinocarriagologists" ? StuRat (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Train spotter? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're off word criterion, let's remember the other term. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the British drive on the left-hand side of the road?

I have read the article, and this suggests simple historical continuity. I have heard somewhere that it is due to it allowing the drivers dominant hand to control the wheel when changing gears, whilst my mother insists it is so the gentleman's pistol or sword is on the road side and he can protect her from attack. Does anyone know for sure? Cheers, Quincel99 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just folklore as a source from me, but I had heard it originated in the times of mounted knights. When two knights approach eachother on a road, they will pass with the other knight on their right, so - much like your mother's story - they are ready to use their sword with their right hand if need be. NByz (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Right- and left-hand traffic does suggest historical continuity but also presents several of the various theories put forward to explain it, including the dominant-eye and sword-defence ideas and a suggestion about the habits of teamsters being responsible for the US switch to the right. No one explanation appears to be generally accepted, and it looks likely that there is no definitive answer to your question. Ka renjc 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the answer on the Straight Dope, which seems like a generally reliable source, and corroborates both of the posts above mine. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you drive on the right? It's all about perspective. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they won't let me drive down the middle, even though I promised to wear my tin foil hat. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the Chunnel opened, there was some concern because the British drive on the left, and the French drive on the right. After all, that must be one busy lane! Lots of head-on collisions! <rimshot> I know it's a train tunnel, and no-one drives in it. But sometimes the truth gets in the way of a funny joke! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Channel Tunnel does include a road tunnel as well as the two train tunnels. But it's only for tunnel staff (and emergency evacuations), not the public. They use special service vehicles, and they drive on the left. --Anonymous, 07:09 UTC, February 23, 2009.

I'm sure the left/right drive article said they drove on the right in the tunnel. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it did. Fixed. --Anon, 05:42 UTC, Feb. 24, 2009.

My favorite Just So story: You mount a horse from the left so as not to get entangled with the sword hanging at your left hip. Therefore, when you leave a building and walk into the street, your horse is waiting with his left side toward you. When you mount, you then find yourself on the left side of the street. —Tamfang (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers everyone, perhaps not a decisive answer but it looks likely I'm wrong, so I'll say no more about it! Quincel99 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel pump

Hello, I have a Honda Civic whose engine has been rumbling more than usual whenever I press the gas. The problem started after a hilly 2-hour round trip. When I took it to Sears for inspection, they said it was an issue with the fuel pump but could not tell me more since it was not a place equipped for serious work (they pointed me to Firestone). I was wondering how serious a fuel pump issue would be? I've been avoiding driving it too much, and I will get it checked eventually. Searching online for answers has not seemed to turn up anything specific. How should I handle this fuel pump problem? 98.228.34.62 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good news is that it's unlikely to explode. The bad news is that a fuel pump is quite necessary to "go". I guess the seriousness of this particular problem would depend on how serious you consider your engine dying during the middle of a drive to be. If you're going to get it checked eventually, I would recommend doing it sooner rather than later. In general, putting off necessary maintenance can cause additional damage. – 74 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Get it fixed. To have your car's engine stop running while you're driving can be dangerous, especially with power steering. The job itself is probably going to be an expensive nightmare, if Sears got it right. At least they have no conflict of interest, not being able to do the job themselves. I don't know the Hondas, but the fuel pump is often part of the fuel tank, and there is often more than one. Me, I would try a couple of things first for that symptom: get a bottle of injector cleaner, pour it in your (full) tank, and run it through. If that doesn't make it better, I'd try a new fuel filter before I went for a pump—same symptom, right? Can't hurt. It's amazing how cruddy a fuel filter can get. Check your air cleaner, too. Are you getting a code? And I'm surprised you haven't provided a model and year. That's barebones info for car repair questions. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the fuel pump is on the engine, it can be very serious if the fuel leaks into the engine. (oil diluted, bearings die and leak, engine catches fire). If the engine oil smells of fuel then this might well be it. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for coincidence? The fuel pump on my car has been playing up lately, and on Friday night it stopped working completely. I got it to the mechanic yesterday (Monday), and I've just had a phone call saying the car's ready. It's going to cost me AUD $361.50 - slightly steep, but not too bad. My car's not exactly of recent vintage, though, and a more recently made one may cost somewhat more than that. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once had a car with a faulty fuel pump and it kept cutting out. It would run for maybe a week then cut out twice in a day; or it wouldn't start 'til I gave the fuel pump a kick. It always seemed like it was cutting out when I was going down the motorway, or it was raining heavily, or when I had something urgent to do. Of course, whenever the AA got there the fault had mysteiously fixed itself and were only able to suggest it "might be the fuel pump". In the end, I got so sick of the unreliability, I fitted a new pump. It was easy to fit, cheaper than I feared and certainly fixed the problem. Astronaut (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fuel pumps on many older cars are failing because of the introduction of ethanol into gasoline. Ethanol dissolves many of the older kinds of seals and also is conductive to electricity - both of which can drastically shorten the lives of fuel pumps that were designed to pump pure gasoline. This is especially true of the pumps that are immersed in gasoline inside the gas tank for cooling purposes. If your car is more than about 10 years old...you're going to need a new fuel pump sooner or later! SteveBaker (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming you have no choice but to have ethanol in your fuel. In Australia, ethanol-free fuel is the norm, but ethanol-added fuel is also available. Maybe we won't have that choice one day, who knows. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]