Miscellaneous desk
< December 31	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 2 >

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.

January 1

What Vietnamese ethnic groups originate from the North Central Coast region?

I understand that the Montagnard/Degar people originated from Central Highlands (Vietnam) between Huế and Ho Chi Minh City. I am inclined to believe that Vietnamese people from Huế are similar to the ethnic groups found in the Central Highlands and South Vietnam regions but I don't want to make any rash assumptions. During the Vietnam War, for instance, Huế was considered South and was anti-Communist. Lhboga (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in this region are from the Kinh (Viet) ethnic majority. This is certainly true of the main cities, Hue and Danang. Inland in the hills and mountains there is a very wide range of ethnic groups, for example Muong people. Although there is some overlap, the mix of ethnic groups is different from the Central Highlands. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try asking the curators at the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology -- the WP article gives the official site. There are 54 ethnic groups in Vietnam! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death Pool 2009

Well it's that time of year again. Once again I dominated my celebrity death pool with the help of Wikipedia. Thank you to anyone who helped me last year. If anyone knows of a famous person who is likely to cash it in in the year 2009 please reply below.

DISCLAIMER - the death pool I am in is for entertainment purposes only(no money.) I will not kill anyone and please don't kill anyone for me. The only requirment to being famous is that they have to have a page on wikipedia. Thanks again! --ChesterMarcol (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're making good by donating half your winnings to the Wiki foundation (see top of page)! SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I got any money for winning I would.--ChesterMarcol (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Lansbury is getting up there in age. Though her article doesn't mention anything more than a knee replacement in the last few years. Dick Cheney and John McCain are thought by many (WP:OR) to be in view of death's door. Bob Barker is no spring chicken. And Ed McMahon has had a number of health issues in recent years. The stress of being in financial trouble could be weighing on his health. Dismas|^(talk) 20:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people I've written articles about must be about due: Hugues Cuénod is 106 and Roy Douglas is 101. But Cuénod married his partner only 2 years ago, when he was 104, so maybe he now has a new reason to keep on going. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Clark hasn't been doing well for a few years now... Dismas|^(talk) 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Robson, Nancy Reagan, Patrick Swazye, Margaret Thatcher, Seve Ballesteros, Ted Kennedy. Rockpocket 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question (2012)

Why do people believe there will be an acopalypse in 2012? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are extremely misguided. There's a bit more information at 2012#2012 metaphysical speculations. Algebraist 02:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millenarianism is very, very common. People are constantly harping about the end of the world (and have been for literally centuries and centuries and centuries), and it consistently fails to occur. In a way it's a nice idea—no need to plan for the future, to think about today's problems. But it's not a sound bet. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, nobody can actually guarantee there won't be an apocalypse in 2012; but I agree, that's not the same thing as saying there will be one. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself how close did George Orwell get with his prediction in the novel 1984 or how close did Arthur C. Clarke get with his predictions in 2001: A Space Odyssey and they were comparatively modern and scientifically educated people trying to guess only a few decades ahead. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair to either Orwell or Clarke. They wrote fiction as in, "I made this up myself". Neither ever claimed that their visions of the future was going to come exactly true. Especially 1984, you'd be nuts to think that that is the actual future. Orwell wrote it to make a point, it's a futuristic parable describing the dangers of totalitarianism, not a prediction of things to come. That's the difference between great writers like Orwell and Clarke and hucksters like those maniacs saying that the world will end in 2012. Lets not smear the former group with the taint of the latter. Belisarius (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although good science fiction, as opposed to fantasy, does try to predict a possible future. However, even someone like Clarke is not writing with any attempt to predict the future. Clarke was merely looking at the way things were going, using his imagination, and creating a fictional world from the way things appeared to him. It's just like Joel Rosenberg has done with his books. Some of the things he postulated as possible have come true, though even those he has written about haven't happened in exactly the same way. (His fictional account of how the U.S. might invade Iraq, for instance; obviously, a good writer with his finger ont he pulse of the world could have predicted something like that.)

Bring this full circle back to 2012. the end of the Mayan calendar in its present cycle, I think some New Age stuff, and other things are merely guesses. they don't really have their "finger on the pulse" of anything. Those who do have their finger on the pulse of things (some sci-fi writers with space travel, Rosenberg with the Middle East) may come close to the truth, but none of them is predicting the world to end in 2012.

However, it is much easier for the masses - the "lowest common dennominator," if you will - to follow those who just prdict big things that make noise. Noise makes news. It requires more effort to figure things out in a logical way, or even to listen to those who use knowledge of technology, Middle Eastern politics, etc.. The masses would often rather listen to those who excite them rathe rthan those who reason things out in a logical manner. Although, if it can be written about in an entertaining way (like Rosenberg), it can still be a bestseller. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predicting the future is one thing - predicting it with specific dates is quite another. Many science fiction books are written from the perspective of this being the kind of world we'll have in the future (2001 is certainly one of those) - but putting specific dates on things is dangerous because there is a big difference between WHAT we can do and WHEN we decide to do it.

Clarke knew that man was soon to land on the moon - that was a safe prediction. It followed from that that there would one day be colonies in orbit and on the moon and that commercial transportation could get you there. Also that a trip to Jupiter could be done - but would require some kind of hibernation system and a spin-gravity system.

His predictions are all pretty subtle - he correctly predicted that zero gravity would be so injurious to our health that we'd need artificial gravity for long flights - but not for a 'short' hop to the moon. He got that 100% correct. Pan-Am went bust - so that prediction went badly wrong - but another transatlantic commercial air carrier (Virgin) are just beginning to get manned commercial space flight - so the prediction that commercial companies would take over the earth-to-orbit stuff wasn't too far off the mark. We do have a permanently manned orbital space station (although it's hardly on the scale of the one in 2001) - and people even go on vacation there - so that wasn't a bad guess either. All very good stuff. But who could have guessed that after a few wildly successful moon missions, we'd leave it for 40 years before going back again?! We have the technology to do an orbital space station with spin gravity - we could certainly make a lunar base with hundreds of people working there - we simply decided not to do that (and it's probably just as well because our robotic missions are doing a better job anyway). Clarke's predictions for our future space progress might well eventually come true - but it may take another 100 years if we don't have the will (or the need) to go there. SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See 2012 (film). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literary footnote. Orwell originally named his book 1948, but his publisher changed it to get more sales. Phil_burnstein (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Algebraist 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he just wrote it around 1948 and chose the 1984 title himself to mean "the present-day, but changed". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please - ladies & gentlemen - I have beside me this unreasonably large 2.6 million entry encyclopedia. Shall we see if it has an article about it? Oh look - it does! Evidently, Orwell chose two titles: "The Last Man in Europe" and "Nineteen Eighty-Four" - his publisher recommended the latter - and Orwell agreed. It wasn't a misprint or a forced change from his publisher or some kind of satirical commentary - it was just the year he chose - and he'd considered 1980 and 1982 as alternatives (the book was written in 1946 to '48). The number reversal thing is merely a coincidence - and since the book was written over a period of three years and published in 1949 - it wasn't really much of a coincidence anyway. SteveBaker (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poster keeps falling down

I have a holographic poster that I tried to stick on my door but it keeps falling off no matter how much blutack I put on it. What can I use to stick it up without wrecking my door? I can't be bothered getting it framed. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it coming off because it's too heavy or because the Blu-Tack won't stick to it?

If it's because the poster is too smooth and the blutack won't stick to it - then you could permenantly stick some kind of backing to the back of your poster using a really strong glue (maybe stick a sheet of thin cardboard onto the back using PVA glue) - then stick that backing to the door using blutack. You'd actually only need to stick little pieces of backing to the poster in the corners where the blutack has to go.
If it's because the poster is too heavy then use many more blobs of blutack all over the back of the poster.

Incidentally - it's possible for the blutack to damage your door - it's kinda oily and that can affect some surface finishes. SteveBaker (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to an office supplies store and get yourself something like this [1] Clip a couple on to the rim of your poster. You can then attach them with 3M "Command" strips or those blutack things to your door. If all else fails you can run a string through them and put a small nail or tack onto the top of your door (not the face) where one can't see it. Then suspend your poster from that nail. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blu-tack can indeed damage walls and doors—I've often seen it leave behind nasty oily residues. I usually use Scotch tape myself—it doesn't damage the door or wall. One way to get around it damaging the poster is to put up little pieces of tape on the back of the poster that you then use double-sided tape on for the wall. If you do it that way you should be able to just peel off the poster later without any tape ripping it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after a while most scotch tape will adhere to paint quite well, often peeling the paint off. There is white poster-tack, which is less visible than the blue kind on walls. The 3M command strips are a bit pricey, but I have found they work quite well, and leave no damage behind. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the 'invisible' scotch tape works pretty well - but the older, shiney kind will certainly peel off paint - and if you leave it in sunlight for a while, it'll turn yellow, peel off and leave a yellow powdery residue behind that'll stain the paint pretty well too. BluTack is definitely the lesser risk there. SteveBaker (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

File:Dog feces.jpg

--Wmrwiki (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

troll food?86.4.182.202 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture size reduced. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Contemplation~~ ---Sluzzelin talk 18:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defececation. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, Cooky really shrunk that one, all the way to 3 pixels! I thought it was a speck of dirt on my screen! Nope, I don't wish to contemplate over canine feces right now, and the question has been answered. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it had been 1,000 pixels originally and looked like droppings from tyrannosaurus rex. I thought that 3 pixels adequately represented the significance of the doggy poo. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pharmaceutical oath?

I heard a short exchange of dialogue from 6teen while flipping through the channels last night, which inspires me to ask: Is there a law (or something like it) that prevents people working at drug stores (pharmacies) from telling everyone what people bought? i.e., if someone goes into a drug store and gets like 70 packs of condoms and a couple energy drinks (they're getting ready for an all-nighter), what stops them from chatting to their coworkers about it over a lunch break? On that show, they called it a "pharmaceutical oath," which sounded authentic, but Googling it gets no good results... flaming lawye r^c 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is an oath. There are basic medical privacy laws, though, which would surely cover situations in which practitioners were exchanging patient medical information just for a laugh. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if there's any rule that says they can't discuss what's happened at work. The privacy laws, I assume, would restrict them only from doing so in a way that allows individually identifying the person involved. I'm not a lawyer. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled on "pharmacist's oath", and there is a site, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy with an oath. I imagine that the taking or administering of this oath is up to the school. The oath makes mention of "the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct", which covers blabbing, I think. --Milkbreath (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't have any meaning from a legal point of view, though; breaking the oath wouldn't be a sign of a firm moral backbone, but the cops wouldn't lift a finger on that basis. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However some pharmacies may make the oath compulsory. And in some countries the oath may considered compulsory by the Pharmacy/ist Council/Association or whatever organisation is involved in registering pharmacists. In other words, even if the oath doesn't have legal standing, it may still be expected of pharmacists and failing to respect it could put their careers at risk. Here in NZ I can't find any specific mention of privacy but there are probably generic terms that cover it [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing is the issue covered by 98 and Trovatore above. Are you referring to a personal privacy or generic privacy? Many countries have basic medical privacy laws which will likely prevent pharmacists from discussing specific patient medical details. In other words they can't discuss how Flaming came in and asked for a 60 pack of condoms and 2 energy drinks. These laws probably don't prevent the discussion of a case in a generic terms without mentioning names or information that could lead to the identifcation of who you're talking about. In NZ the specific laws are covered here [3] and the Privacy Commissioner can handle complaints (and I presume if a complaint is upheld forwards it to the Pharmacy Council or the Health and Disability Commissioner for further consideration.) I only found one case relating to a Pharmacy [4] although I obviously could have missed some or perhaps others were dealt with by the H&D Commissioner without the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner. Also since condoms and energy drinks are not usually controlled as requiring a pharmacist to dispence, these laws may not apply in some circumstances. E.g. I suspect if you go to your local store/supermarket and get the condoms (not from a pharmacy) they won't apply. There are more generic and less stringent privacy laws but whether they cover a situation like this I don't know. It's possible they do but have never been tested. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what country are we talking about? See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 04:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How tall is Danbo?

I'm making some papercrafts from a bunch of huge boxes I have, and wanted to make a life-size Danbo. Could someone find out (or hell, approximate) his height?

Thanks.

71.74.181.173 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Danbo is a a robot-like costume worn by Miura Hayasaka who is a class mate of Ena Ayase who is a few years older than Yotsuba who is a 5 year old Japanese Girl. If "A few years" = say "3", the Miuri would be about 8. If the final height of a Japanese lady is around 5 foot, maybe an 8 year old is 4 foot tall. This is all a wild guess from a brief read of the wikipedia article. -- SGBailey (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betting on bad things

Are there websites where you can bet on politicians dying, wars starting, places being bombed, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.98.148 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One place would be your local bar. Other than that, this is the best thing I could find on Google (and that's not even remotely close to what you want). There are some flaws with the concept of a site like that, though. It might end up like a bounty site or something. I'd be interested in how long a site would be able to stay up on the web without being pursued by activists and/or the US Government. flaming lawye r^c 05:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the president was shot on the day you bet $10.000.000 he would die you would never see the light of day again Pez00 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "External links" subsection of the article on Dead pool might be of use. For history's sake, you might be interested in tontine. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betting companies such as Ladbrokes and William Hill will sometimes take bets based on individual punters requirements and offer odds - they are a specialist form of bet and so it'd need to be a worthwhile amount of money for them to draw it up (I understand a number of ambitious fathers place bets on their son Captaining/playing for England/their country within a set time-frame). I don't know if they would accept disaster-style bets though. Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway (spelling) did a 'bet' with, I think, Florida state regarding the cost of damages by hurricanes/tornados last year. If it was below X million then they received $250m and if it was above X million then Buffet's firm would've had to cover the costs for the state. It turned out that Buffet's bet won and the firm got the money. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People do this all the time - without even realizing it. Insurance is essentially betting on a bad thing happening. When you take a life insurance policy out on your spouse (for example) you are betting that they'll die before the payments (plus interest on those payments) comes to more than the amount the policy pays out. If you buy an extended warranty on that new TV set - you are betting that the TV will fail within the duration of that warranty - with the odds on that bet being the ratio of the cost of the warranty plan with the cost of a new TV. SteveBaker (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. With a bet you are usually betting positively (i.e. hoping for a desired outcome) but with insurance you are protecting against an undesired outcome. Most countries will require that life-insurance policies have an insurable interest - that is to say the death of the person will result in a negative outcome (financially) for the owner of the plan. They are insuraning against the possibility of losing that income. Similarly with the tv - you aren't betting in the hope it breaks, you are insuring against the possibility of it breaking. It's subtle but that difference is a quite important distinction (at least in my opinion). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - but I don't see ANY difference between going to a bookmaker and going to an insurance agent...except perhaps that insurance typically (but not always) takes payment on a month by month basis rather than a lump sum. If a reputable bookmaker would let you place a bet on your house burning down sometime in the next year - and would give you better "odds" than the insurance company (ie the bet costs you less than the insurance company coverage) - then why wouldn't you take it? Sure, it sounds nice to say "protecting against an undesired outcome" rather than "betting against a bad thing" - but where is the actual, material difference? Bookmakers look at the past form of the horses in the race and set odds accordingly - insurers use actuarial tables to figure the probability of your house burning down based on past form of houses in your area. There isn't a difference. You are saying that there is a difference in what I want to happen - but that's just the motive for taking the bet. If I bet on a horse race - do I really care at all which horse wins? Only because I stand to win money if the one I picked wins...otherwise I don't give a rat's ass which horse wins - it's a completely neutral transaction. Similarly for my TV extended warranty - once I decide to make the transaction, I no longer care (much) whether my TV breaks or not - it's become a neutral matter. I guarantee people bet on things they DON'T want to happen all the time. Sports fans who love team 'A' may well bet on team 'B' to win if they think their guys don't stand a chance. Sure, they'd LIKE A to win - but they can "insure" against the mental anguish if B beats the crap out of them by betting on the competition. Such tiny differences between betting and insuring are simply legal and moral niceties - they have no bearing on the actual nature of the transaction. It goes even further than that because people such as the large TV networks who offer million dollar prizes in quiz shows actually insure themselves against someone collecting the big prize. That's not just blurring the line - it's utterly erasing it! SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that insurance tends to reduce your financial risk, while betting is inherantly risky. With insurance, the upside is small for having it, but the downside for not having it can be HUGE. Consider if your house burns down, but you don't have enough to pay for it. According to this page: [5], there were 412,500 house fires in the U.S. in 2006. According to this page: [6] there were 114,384,000 or so households in the U.S. in 2006. Now, that means your odds of having your house burn down are roughly .36% chance, or 3.6 out of 1000. That's much better odds than any gambling I know of. And here's the kicker. With gambling, your taking money you already have and using it for a small chance of improving your financial situation. With insurance, you are taking money you have, and using it to protect against future loss. With insurance, the downside of NOT having it and gambling wrong is FAR worse than the upside of having an extra $50 bucks a month or so in your pocket. With gambling, the extra money you COULD get may be nice, but if you don't play (and thus never win) you aren't ruined. With insurance, if you don't play, you can be ruined rather easily... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are markets - I can't think of the specialist term at the moment - popular in economic circles for "predicting" events. The idea being that large sets of people "signal" in various ways, and market forces work to ensure validity - bad predictors go broke, good predictors get rich. Oh, don't you know, the term is obvious - Prediction market. Although, as noted in the article, negative predictions are highly controversial. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]