Miscellaneous desk
< June 3	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 5 >

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.

June 4

Vacation in China and Internet censorship

I will be vacationing in China over the summer for several weeks. I hold a Canadian citizenship. Generally speaking, is it considered dangerous to be accessing sites such as Youtube, Facebook, Wikipedia through a proxy in order to access the Firewall-restricted contents? I'd imagine I would be mainly accessing the Internet through hotel room connections. Are there incidents of tourists being detained by the police for accessing blocked sites? Acceptable (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I would not mess with the Chinese government. You will probably be OK, but they do not have a great record with regards to these things. Leave Wikipedia alone for 2 weeks, enjoy China, but I would stay away from antagonizing your hosts unneccessarily. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While in China, I didn't use a proxy, but other long-term expatriates did. It's kind of slow, but it works. They never recieved any backlashes from it. I only have this anecdotal evidence to go on. While I was there, in late 2007, I could get facebook and google, but not WP or youtube. The Chinese youtube analogue is [Tudou http://www.tudou.com]. OT: The cheapest internet you find is in cheap hotels, where you have access to an unprotected network if you have a laptop. Otherwise, internet cafes are generally about a tenth of the price of the access in hotels. You'll need your passport for an internet cafe - they'll scan it, but don't let them keep it. Steewi (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, he will probably be OK, but the Chinese government is notoriously arbitrary about these things. He may not even get noticed; or may get noticed and ignored, or may get in a lot of trouble. Odds are that he will not have any trouble, but the downside of being wrong on that bet is probably too great. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true on the arbitrary bit. It's like a whole bunch of laws - they're rarely enforced, but if they can't prove something else, that's a law you've broken that they can get you on (like copyright infringement, jaywalking, etc.). The best thing is, do so at your own risk. All the police I dealt with in China were very friendly, but I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the law there. Steewi (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Chinese internet accessing approach does not target individual users, though they have the ability to. Primarily they operate by regulating sites within China's borders (ISPs do a lot of self-regulating out of fear) and then just try to block access to things outside the borders. As I understand it is extremely rare to prosecute proxy use by their own citizens; I find it pretty much inconceivable that they would bother to do so for a foreigner, especially if you are accessing the sites you mention and not, say, doing a bunch of Falon Gong activities. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I would stay away from response from people who have no idea what they’re talking about (a big shout out to Jayron32!). Like Germany’s restrictions on access to pro-Nazi websites, China doesn’t allow access to certain types of websites. For the most part, the restrictions are for Chinese language websites, but not exclusively. The bottom line is this: if you try to access a site that is blocked, you won’t be able to access it. As for the cops kicking down your door, my experience in the past month is that they have much better things to do. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts belt color class

What is the orders of belts used for martial arts belt levels. I know it start out white, then next level is yellow, then orange. What color will be after orange. Is that where the medium class begins? Would it be greenbelt, then bluebelt, then purple belt, then brown belt. Is brown belt a high class in martial class or is it medium class. Is there such thing as army belt. I know blackbelt is master level in martial arts, there is 10 degree levels of blackbelt.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Black belt (martial arts) article: Rank and belts are not equivalent between arts, styles, or even within some organisations. So, really, trying to come up with an all encompassing scheme for all the arts is meaningless. Dismas|^(talk) 01:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if we remember the sage advice of Kesuke Miyagi in response to the question "What kind of belt do you have?: "Canvas. J.C. Penny. Three ninety-eight. ... [laughs] ... Daniel-san, karate here. [taps his head] Karate here. [taps his heart] Karate never here. [points to his belt] Understand?" [1] -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, usually the belt colours go as follow: white, pale yellow, yellow, peach, amber, orange, grass green, bright green, cyan, teal, turquoise, blue, sky blue, lilac, purple, violet, crimson, red, salmon, pink, hot pink, beige, brown, sienna, black. So you'll have a lot of training to do before you reach master level. =) 194.100.223.164 (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For information on coloured belts see kyū, which says "there is no standard association of belt colours with particular ranks ... different schools and organizations assign colours independently". For ranks of black belts see dan (rank). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said, the belt system varies by art and by school. For what it's worth, while I was traiing in the International Taekwondo Federation style of Taekwon-Do, the belt order was white, yellow, green, blue, red, black. --Zerozal (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I did karate, it was white, red, orange, yellow, then a bunch of other colours. Except they didn't do red or orange, we had to keep the white belt until we reached yellow. I think they expected lots of people to just give up after a few months and not want to waste lots of money on all the different belts. 148.197.114.207 (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP mentioned an "army belt", probably referring to a camouflage belt, which the American Taekwondo Association uses as the fourth belt (6th Grade), after white, orange and yellow, and followed by green. Coreycubed (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

most trivial discussions

I remember reading an article once about the most frivolous, pedantic or trivial discussions on wikipedia but now I can't remember how to find it. Does anyone know the name of the page or what to search for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAME may be a good place to start. Its not directly related, but if you want this subject matter, it should pique your interest some. Wikipedia:Historic debates is another good one. When I read the topic, I thought maybe you were interested in the film My Dinner with Andre which may be 2 hours of the most trivial discussion ever; alas it predates Wikipedia by some 20 years. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not solely containing trivial discussions, but I must point out the old, very funny page Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense has now apparently been deleted (well, not redlink-deleted, but ... you'll see), and is available instead at [2]. It's got plenty of frivolous discussions on it. Tempshill (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, there was a famously protracted discussion over the use of one image in the cat article. I can't find it now.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 06:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Talk page highlights is pretty great, particularly the discussion on mammary intercourse.Rockpocket 06:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have about a day to spare (seriously), have a look as Talk:British Empire. Start at thread 6, "British Isles", and read on, if you dare. Virtually the remainder of that VERY long talk page is about one single issue, whether or not to say that the 14 British Overseas Territories are outside the British Isles. Nobody disputes that they are, it's just whether or not it's appropriate to say they are. The debate has been in full swing since 16 May and still seems as heated as ever. I got slightly involved for a little while, but dropped out after realising that life is just too short. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobody disputes that they are, it's just whether or not it's appropriate to say they are." Ahh, yes, well, that comment's not quite accurate, you see..................and where are your sources? ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is quite accurate. Sources? Get an atlas. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reply is extremely disingenuous. There are factions all over Wikipedia trying to get atlases removed from the shelves and those who appease them fail to take account of the atlas-shortage. :P Ghmyrtle was making a joke, as indicated by the winking smilie at the end. 80.41.126.158 (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good current one I just saw is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacon, Egg and Cheese sandwich, although it is actually not tht trivial in some respects; as you will see by reading it there is some importance to this debate. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which Robin Cook book is this?

Resolved

I recall having read a medical thriller by Robin Cook. The plot went something like normal people were being diagnosed with cancer, and hence declared brain dead. However, the protagonist found out that it was not actually cancer, just a mutation of common cold which was registering as cancer. This was deliberately being done by one of the doctors of the hospital. I clearly remember one situation where the protagonist is barred from entering the hospital, hence he breaks in, and 'steals' the heart or brain of the affected patient (who is dead by that time). Please help me in finding the name of this novel - I think it might Fever, Blindsight, Fatal Cure, or Vital Signs, but not necessarily only those.

Thanks a lot! --RohanDhruva (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography in our article Robin Cook (American novelist) might help you. It links to articles about his novels, most of which contain a plot synopsis. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that it is not blindsight. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of going through the Wikipedia articles on all of his novels for you, I'm fairly confident it is Terminal, though Fever also has a cancer storyline. Prokhorovka (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf, I went through the bibliography, but I just couldn't seem to find it. But now that Prokhorovka points out, I am 100% sure it's Terminal. Thanks a LOT Prokhorovka, you know how irritating it is when you know the plot but can't find the novel :) --RohanDhruva (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, that's my first 'Resolved' Ref Desk, score. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between "no" and "nil"

I had recently attended a meeting wherein on being asked is there any pending points.I replied ,"no point" and my colleague said,"nil point".The chair asked us what is the difference between the two? I am stumped. Can anyone give me an answer? sumal (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Language Desk may be a better place to ask, but as far as I can tell, "no" may be used as an adjective but "nil" is always a noun. Under this usage, since the word is modifying the word "point", no is more appropriate. I have never seen "nil" as a modifier, always as a word on its own. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he may have be making an obscure joke. Nanonic (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that IS obscure Livewireo (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The first thing I thought when I saw the words "nil point" was "Eurovision song contest". It's not obscure, just European. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, straight away. Fribbler (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was that old cartoon movie I watched a couple years back...

I remember watching an old cartoon movie on Channel 24 in my area near St. Louis. It had someone being kidnapped by a giant and it had a weird scene where the hero was rescuing the captive while a bee stung a big giant on the tongue and another bug cut the top of his ear off. I don't remember the title. What was this cartoon movie called?

Starting a car with an automatic gearbox

Some five years ago I hired a car in the U.S., with an auto gearbox (of course!). It started fine, but once I stopped for a coffee it refused to re-start. A passer-by showed me a technique to effect the re-start… could somebody please remind me of this because I shall again be in the States soon. Thanks.86.194.123.14 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Put it in park? Friday (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your foot on the brake? Acroterion _(talk) 14:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggle the steering wheel? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A correctly-operating autotrans car requires no special start sequence. The car shouldn't have let you remove the keys when you stop unless you were already in park. Braking should only be required to shift out of park. The steering-wheel lockout isn't tied to the starter (as best I recall). However, any of the above may be required if something is slightly out of whack. To that end, I'll also add wiggling the shift lever, as it may not be fully engaged in a particular gear. — Lomn 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An automatic should start only in Park or Neutral. There is a safety switch to ensure this, and it is controlled by the physical position of the gear lever. If the switch is worn, or the gear lever loose, proper contact may not be made. So, while holding the key in the start position, push the lever hard forward in Park. If this fails, put it into Neutral and jiggle the lever until it finds a spot where contact is made. Neutral is less used for starting, so may have the less faulty contact. KoolerStill (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some cars need you to put your foot on the brake too. But more than likely your problem was that the car wasn't in park or neutral. SteveBaker (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course with manual transmissions too you should start in neutral, my driving instructor said that starting in gear using the clutch could fail a test because of the risk of lurching forward if the clutch was not fully disengaged. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I now recall the need was to press the brake. (Seems bizare to me!). Re starting a shift-box car. The best way is to start in neutral with the clutch engaged. A two-tier safety. I always park in gear. Then engage the clutch, shift into neutral and then turn the key. Once learned this routine is simple, and the car is never left reliant only on the handbrake.86.209.156.180 (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

It's probably due to some lawsuits in the US claiming that '80s Audi 5000s with automatics were prone to "unintended acceleration" (mentioned in the article) when started [3]. All manufacturers started to interlock the brake pedal, even on manual transmission cars, as a result. Acroterion _(talk) 21:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eating in the street

I was told the other day that eating whilst walking in the street was rude/uncouth (spelling) in the eyes of many in continental Europe. Is there any evidence this is true? It just seems that some food-stuffs are designed to be eaten 'on the go' (crisps and chocolate bars for example), and i'd be surprised if this was considered rude. I've racked my brain for my holidays in Europe but can't remember whether i did or didn't see people doing it. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a made up story. The simple fact that there are street vendors that sells food in all European countries, as you yourself point out, should make it clear that the story is unfounded. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is perhaps more unusual in Europe than America, but not considered rude. I live in London and recently visited NY. In NY there were numerous street vendors everywhere, I saw more in 1 week there than I've seen in all my life in London (though they do exist here, as stated). Prokhorovka (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said continental Europe, and I saw far more street vendors when I visited Paris (mainly selling crepes) than I've seen in London, so I think the answer to the OP's question is probably a straightforward "no". --Tango (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, whenever someone tells you how things are in "Europe" -- continental or otherwise -- you should probably be aware that you're most likely hearing something wildly inaccurate, idiotic, or both. Europe consists of, what, about 50 countries, and cultures, customs and circumstances vary widely from one country to another. Making generalizations like that betrays a kind of a lack of understanding about the nature of Europe. So, you know, that grain of salt? Probably a good idea. (Also, eating a candy bar on the street is considered rude? Give me a break.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully disagree with the previous answers. In France, Italy and Spain tourists may buy street food and eat it standing near the vendor's stand but residents avoid eating while walking along. A candy bar wouldn't be noticed, but eating a burger or fish-and-chips (as you will often see in London) would be regarded as odd or rude. You also do not see people eating on public transport. Of course they do eat at pavement cafes and on park benches. Basically, they like to sit down to eat because it is more pleasant and less messy. The same is also true in some other countries where street food is commonly sold, for example Vietnam. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ah, actually, it seems to me that you agree that it's not considered to be rude "in Europe", but in specific countries, and even then with caveats. Also, my experiences with France and Spain would indicate that generally speaking, if someone walks along a street eating something, nobody bats an eye. Of course, if it's a moron who spreads a good portion of a far-too-elaborate meal across the front of his shirt and leaves the trash lying around, or stinks up a bus with his food, that's another story, but I think at that point it's safe to say that the issue isn't with the eating itself, but with someone being a jerk... uh, which I sincerely hope is not what I am being by insisting that you actually agree with me when you've just said that you don't. Feel free to tell me to shut my piehole, I may well deserve it! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happens to America, of course. Someone drives through Alabama with "Man-Love Rules OK" written on his car and everyone assumes the whole continent is full of homomphobic rednecks... Vimescarrot (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But with America, at least, there's a shared language, history, culture, legal system and sense of nationality, among other things, so there's more in the way of common ground. With Europe, that's not the case. I mean, just to pick an example, in many ways the Nordic countries are pretty similar to each other, and so are the Mediterranean countries, but the cultural differences between those two groups of countries are pretty considerable. The European Union has evened things out, of course, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. In, oh, I don't know, fifty years, Europe may be a lot more homogeneous than it is now. That's not necessarily a bad thing; when I type something like that, images of 1984 kind of force themselves into my mind, but it's not like the American states are all the same -- quite the contrary, there's a lot of cultural diversity there. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one assumes that about the whole of North America, just the whole of Alabama (and 51% of California)! ;) --Tango (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This have been the case previously, and therefore the argument has some backing. My grandmother, who I would describe as upper-class English, has made particular comments about this specifically. And it is true that you don't see many white-collar workers walking down the street with KFC in their hands. Nor crisps or chocolate for that matter. One would sit down and eat, even for a snack. Although there are many street vendors in Paris etc, I would say the norm is still to sit down and eat your foot rather than walk and eat. That's not to say people think it is rude, just my opinion of what people actually do. JoshHolloway 01:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ate your foot,could you still walk afterwards? hotclaws 23:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Josh - my late grandmother (well educated, lower middle-class English, with very clear ideas about etiquette) regarded eating anything other than an ice cream cone in the street as appallingly bad manners, and I have heard others of her generation express the same view as an article of faith. My parents didn't express such strong views but I never, ever saw them do it, and whilst I do grab a sandwich outdoors occasionally, I would always try to sit and eat rather than eat and walk along. Captain is right about the how-you-do-it aspect being important - scattering your chips around or dumping your wrappers will certainly mark you out as a jerk - but there does seem to have been a degree of cultural bias in Britain in the fairly recent past against eating anything substantial on the hoof. Maybe it's because the range and availability of such food has increased in recent times? Or maybe it's because a person guzzling as they walk really isn't an attractive sight for the non-guzzlers around them... Ka renjc 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am British, and I think eating in the street is uncouth. It suggests that the eater is - how can I describe it? - slobbish, ignorant, unintelligent, unsophisticated. It is rather irritating, and unpleasant to look at, but I put it down to ignorance rather than the person being deliberately rude. People so often do things which they never for a moment imagine upset people, such as my neighbour and his tinkling wind chimes (knashing teeth) or the ugly kitsch sculptures that are perpetually being put up by ignorant local government councillors in inappropriate places, particularly where they spoil natural beauty. 78.151.137.230 (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries/museusm: Where can I take photographs?

Anyone knows a website where photograph restrictions in museums or galleries are listed? For example, where does one need a permit or where is it allowed but w/o artifical light? Thanks a lot, --77.4.80.65 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning to visit a specific museum or museums, it's best to check directly with the museum. I'm sure different museums have different rules with regard to tripods, flash, and the permission of photography at all, and even within the same museum it could change exhibit to exhibit. I doubt that there exists a single source that collates the photography restrictions/permissions of every museum and gallery on the planet. --Zerozal (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does water get into a sealed gas can?

So I shelled out $100 to fix my Honda lawn mower. The repair shop said there was water in the fuel line and it probably came from the gas can. The gas can is a 5-gallon standard gas can that was filled up with 87 octane perhaps 2 weeks ago. Since the can is sealed, I am perplexed as to how water can get in the fuel line. I leave the mower outside sometimes and it has rained, but the repair shop said that would not put water in the fuel line. Are gas and emissions standards changing to make storing gasoline more difficult? I have now two gas cans; one is half full. I live in Florida so hurricane season is always a good reason to have full gas cans, but if a shorter shelf life ruins gasoline for the lawn mower, what will it do if I put it in a car? I don't get this nuttiness at all. Anyone want to trade for an old push thresher type mower? --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you opened the gas can and it was pretty humid out, water could maybe have condensed on the inside of the can? Your seal may not be as air tight as you think. Livewireo (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is air space in the container, there will be condensation in it when it cools down, for example when it gets rained on after being out in the sun all day. This could have happened in the mower itself, or in the can, especially if it was not filled full. It could also have happened in the underground tanks where you filled the can. These always have water in them, partly from condensation and partly from small leaks. Gasoline normally floats on top of the water, but it may get stirred up when the tank is refilled, a good reason not to buy fuel right after the gas station has been refilled. "Staleness" in fuel is caused not by water, but by the breakdown of some components, resulting in gummy deposits in the container and a reduced octane rating in the fuel. Additives can slow this reaction.KoolerStill (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, seals deteoriate over time, so, regardless of what the repair shop said, there are any number of ways to imagine how water got into your fuel system. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I once visited a roadside menagerie which had a sadly deteriorated seal living in a tank of murky water.Edison (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, if you'd taken some flowers with you, you could have revived it with a Kiss from a Rose. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just crazy ...cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]