Miscellaneous desk
< August 10	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 12 >

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.

August 11

"RTC grant"

What would RTC stand for here? The context is financial aid at a university (United States). 70.162.15.58 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might try searching "RTC aid [name of state]" or "RTC aid [name of school]." I found Regional Training Center grants at East Carolina University (in North Carolina) but it seems clear there are many different uses for the "RTC" abbreviation. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-spelled ROTC? Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "RTC grant" gave Regional Telecommunications Council[1] or Regional Technology Center[2]. If it is neither of them, there are many alternatives[3]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Paris

I realise that I have asked this before, and your help was greatly appreciated, but... My band is giving me a hard time, I promised them a gig in Paris, and God knows I have been trying to find one for us, but i dont speak french. Can any one please, pretty please provide me with a list of names of small pub type venues where a small UK unsigned band can play a gig or two in Paris. All I need is the name and I wiill do the rest. I have never been to Paris, and when I try to google this, with various combinations, all I find is resteraunts, and profesional musicians' venues. I need a list of small pubs in Paris that regularly host unsigned bands. If it helps, www.myspace.com/2010exile I do not wish to self promote here but it may help you to help me if you know what we play. thanks wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do the two things I suggested, which were to browse Last FM's list of upcoming gigs in Paris and follow the links from there, and to buy a copy of the Time Out Guide to Paris which has a long list of venues? --Viennese Waltz ^talk 08:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything specific to say about Paris but I have experience in music promotion so here are some pointers. I heard your band's sound, that's ok. Your band's name "Exile" is hopelessly unoriginal[4] and used by others, so get a new one. Image means everything and you don't have one. How about focussing on Georgia your lead singer and let the other 4 guys be her faceless session musicians? Parisian venues will be more interested in a new girl singer (with her band) than just "a band" because they have enough French bands. Maybe this is treading on some egos but, as they say, that's rock and roll. Good luck. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Georgia and the X-isle X-perience ? Nah...[reply]

Ah - well, that's something I can definitely help with! If you need a new band name, you might like to try http://www.sjbaker.org/cgi-bin/rock_band.cgi (my handy automatic rock band name generator) - "Walrus from Beyond", "The iron dogs from Heck", "The mystic concrete frizbee of Starship nine"? SteveBaker (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cute applet, although some of the names are a bit longwinded. Are you really going to put The Technicolour war nerds that came from beyond the grave on a marquee?

By the way, just so we're clear, Spock and the Space Hippies is mine. I thought of that name more than twenty years ago. As soon as I find a drummer and learn to play guitar, I'm all set. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a Star Trek episode where Spock made friends with a bunch of space hippies who kept calling Kirk and everybody they disagreed with "Irvin" or something like that? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I see you reach. --Trovatore (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no you aren't going to name your band "The Technicolour war nerds that came from beyond the grave" - you're going to smile, maybe giggle a little - then push "Pick Another" until you get one you like! Incidentally, I just hit the button and got "The swamp fires killer" which - given the peat bog fires in Russia killing 350 people a day - might not be the most tactful band name to pick!...but then I hit the button again and got "The blue plastic pirates of Time" which isn't so terrible and might even make for some nice album cover art. The band I played in as a teenager was called "Electroplasm"...with a small dollar sign for the 's'...we really could have benefited from a modern technological solution! SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bobs have a very nice song about this, called Namin' the Band. When I heard the lyric

We were gonna call ourselves Elvis ... Hitler, but somebody beat us to the punch

I have to admit I thought it was a takeoff on "Marilyn Manson" (pop culture icon + iconic figure of evil); wasn't till years later that I looked it up on WP and found out there was actually an Elvis Hitler, which apparently is not a takeoff on Marilyn Manson. --Trovatore (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was always partial to "Delusions of Grandeur" myself. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - if you call your band "The Technicolour war nerds that came from beyond the grave", everyone will be very clear about the nature of your delusions! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever start a band, I'm going to name it "People playing music." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "Main Page" myself. These days, information on bands with weird names is too easy to find. Also, all the song titles are going end in "(disambiguation)". Paul (Stansifer) 20:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is greatly apprciated, and I have looked at lastfm listing which was a great help, thanks, But as stated previously, I dont speak french and its hard to tell which ones are concert halls filled by proffesional, if unfamous, musicians. I have sent countless emails but with no response so far, so any further help would be appreciated. As for the name, I dod not choose it, but was not overly disapointed as it can be used thus, tour to france called Exile to Paris or Exile to Berlin etc. but, People Playing Music, is BRILLIANT!!! I will use that with my next band, if you dont copywrite it. Thank people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.145.145 (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France is less than 200km from where you are near Watford so please learn French. Here is an easy lesson. Bonjour vous la personne anglaise musicale. Mon pays est moins que deux cent kilomètres de Watford si pourquoi l'enfer vous ne parlez pas notre langue ? Nous avons des bébés qui gèrent le parler. Ah bien, j'espère que votre musique est mieux que votre compétence linguistique. Avoir un jour agréable à Paris ! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a machine translation, or has it just been a while since you took French :-) ? --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure the OP is from Watford. They could be from almost anywhere in the UK and just their ISP is based in Watford. Astronaut (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural disasters

How many natural disasters have there been in the last 10 years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.122.138 (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In practical terms, uncountably many. Take a look at our natural disaster article: there are, among other things, avalanches, earthquakes, lahars, volcanic eruptions, floods, limnic eruptions, tsunamis, blizzards, cyclonic storms, droughts, hailstorms, heat waves, tornadoes, fires, epidemics, famines, and more. Tracking down exact numbers of any one category worldwide is difficult; for many, it's virtually impossible. One must also determine at what level something becomes a "disaster", and whether or not multiple events lump into a single "disaster". — Lomn 13:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Our answer to that will be of limited use unless we know what constitutes a natural disaster. Is it a natural disaster if a volcano errupts in a remote location, but has minimal human impact? Does a forest fire count if we are not sure if it was caused by lightning or human carelessness? If a dam collapses because of a combination of deferred maintenance and a prodigious amount of rainfall, is it natural? If there is a very nasty thunderstorm that does a few hundred thousand dollars worth of damage, and interrupts power to thousands but no one is injured or killed, is it a disaster? Googlemeister (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding, to give one example, may not wholly be a "natural" disaster. Firstly, there is the question of how much climate and weather patterns have been affected by human action. Secondly, contributory factors in the excessive surface run-off which causes flooding include the loss of woodland and other vegetation on hillsides, which would otherwise have helped slow down flows, and the increase in impermeable surfaces such as tarmac and concrete. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could apply to almost any recent "natural disaster". Just this year, look at 2010 floods and Global storm activity of 2010 for instance. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did Steve Jobs get an internship at HP at 12 years old?

Was his family friends with Hewlett? I find it hard to believe a 12-year-old with no special contacts, no matter how smart or good with words, could get access to and consideration from the president of a major corporation. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This explains. It's pretty hard to believe, but so are a lot of Silicon Valley stories. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so unbelievable, as the story you point to is that he got a summer job, aged 15, which is far more prosaic than getting an internship, aged 12. --Dweller (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a number of interrelated and confused stories floating about. This bio from the Encyclopedia of World Biography reports that Jobs was visiting the Hewlett-Packard plant for a lecture while a high school student (age unspecified); Jobs reportedly asked William Hewlett for some parts for a project, and was offered a summer internship. The link above repeats the parts story, but suggests that the 15-year-old Jobs actually telephoned Hewlett after "looking him up in the Palo Alto white pages". Meanwhile, this article, which appeared in Businessweek in 2004, also asserts that Jobs called Packard and was offered an internship, but at the age of twelve. One wonders if the age-twelve story is simply an error; there seem to be several discrepancies among the details of the story. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from film to digital SLR

Wotcha, I'm thinking about buying a film SLR. One day I would like to be able to afford a decent DSLR - but I want to make sure I don't take myself down a blind alley with regard to lenses. Are all lenses (company by company) interchangable? Will any lens fitting a Canon EOS 1998 something I might buy go straight onto my swish new Canon DSLR 2012? Or will I have to begin again?

Thanks 195.60.13.52 (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all lenses will be interchangeable -- over time, companies will phase out lens fitting types. However, that's usually a multi-decade period of time. For instance, many of Canon's current DSLRs support the Canon EF-S lens mount, which debuted in 2003 -- no older lenses are EF-S. However, that mount is also back-compatible to the Canon EF lens mount, which debuted in 1987. Those mounts encompass most, if not all, consumer-level Canon lenses you're likely to purchase. I expect similar trends hold other major DSLR manufacturers, and any decent camera shop can verify this. But short answer, EF lenses for a 1990s-era Canon EOS will play just fine with a 2010s-era EOS, digital or not. — Lomn 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that you can get converters/adapters to make say, a Canon lens, fit a Pentax camera (just do a google shopping search for canon to pentax adapter for example). I've no idea of the impact these have though i'd expect they often mean sacrificing auto-focus. ny156uk (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say why you are thinking about a film SLR, or what you mean by a "decent" digital machine. I held out against getting a digital for years because of their limitations, but these days I don't know whether the digitals are any less expensive or have any less capability than the film models. You might get a good deal on a used model from other people moving to digital. I myself have a couple of Nikkormats I should probably think about selling.

Someone mentioned lens adapters; I don't think much of them. Lenses are not built to be put on different makes of cameras, adapters practically always degrade the image to some degree.

Please consider getting a digital now, entry level if you have to, and look for lens compatibility between it and an upper-level one to buy later. The digitals are so much more flexible in so many ways. The film models no longer necessarily have delays on their shutters, their lenses are just as good or better, the entire industry is moving in this direction. Processing literally costs nothing. Put in a little 2GB card, take 500 pictures at maximum resolution.

With film, you have to pay for film processing and printing. You can't see the pictures until that's done. You have to shepherd your shots, because there's a maximum of 36 in the camera until you have to reload.

I think lens compatibility is slightly overrated. I am glad that my 30+ year old lenses fit my new Nikon camera, but in fact I probably won't use them much. It says something about the compatibility camera manufacturers will work to keep, though.

Anyway. Please reconsider getting into a film camera at this point. Kodak has already quit making Kodachrome. The rest of the types of film in the world probably aren't all that far behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphcook (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film isn't going to disappear. It certainly has a higher marginal cost than digital photography, but I take film photographs. If I decide I want to keep on with photography, I'll buy a DSLR, but for now, I don't take photos too often, so it's cheaper to pay about fifty cents per exposure and borrow my roommate's Canon AE-1. Some people exclusively take film still, because they like the way it behaves.

Regarding your actual question, I found an extensive table about Nikon lens compatibility, and a PDF with some general information (including which Canon lenses are digital-only). Paul (Stansifer) 01:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think manufacturers will cease making film for all but specialist uses like X-ray machines rather soon. Our list of Companies that make film shows that they are discontinuing manufacturing, going broke or selling only from stockpiled product. Very few film manufacturers are left. When the general public deserts a format, the demise is swift because a lack of demand causes a lack of film manufacturers - which in turn limits the number of people who are going to stick with using it. Almost all of the technical objections to using film have now been overcome - resolution, light sensitivity and speed are all better for digital than for film cameras. The thing that's most likely to kill the film market is when companies that develop the stuff stop buying and maintaining their complicated and expensive machinery. If you can't pop into a handy nearby store and get your photos developed in a day - you'll soon have to mail them to some distant place for processing and suffer a week-long turn-around time. You could still develop them yourself - but few home developers can do color - and sooner or later your suppliers of print paper and chemicals are going to dry up too. It'll take maybe another 5 years for it to die completely - but die it surely will. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect black-and-white film will stick around for a while. It's popular for art, and even the best digital cameras are nowhere near high-quality black-and-white for either resolution or dynamic range. It also has the benefit that you can develop it in your home darkroom. --Carnildo (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking at getting a film camera with the intent of getting a digital camera later, your best bet is Pentax: they've tried to keep full backwards and forwards compatibility, so all Pentax digital cameras can use all Pentax lenses, and most Pentax lenses can be used with any Pentax camera (the exception is that digital-only lenses don't have a large enough projected image to work properly with a full-frame camera body). --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drinking water quality ?

I had an argument about drinking unboiled tap water with my mom, she explained that she had recently read that our country has best quality of water among (god knows what) countries. I've been trying to find such list on web, but so far no luck, so has anybody heard anything like that and how safe exactly is tap water anyway ? I mean it may be clean at water sanitation plant, but from there it goes through piping which may very well be full of evil bacteria ~~Xil (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention which country you live in. It's hard for us to answer questions about the relative quality of your nation's tap water without that. Even within countries, water quality may vary from region to region. This web site has a variety of information about drinking water, including a pdf chart of access to safe drinking water in various countries, but I'm not sure if that's exactly what you're looking for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xil's user page states that he's from redacted. BTW, there are currently 192 member countries of the UN, if that is what you meant by your parenthetical comment. Drinking water quality varies according to the geography of the reservoirs catchment basement; a lot of people find water with excessive chalk or peat water objectionable. The water in the River Ankh at Ankh-Morpork is the purest on the Disc; it has got to be, as its been through so many pairs of kidneys. CS Miller (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking you about comparison of water quality among countries and how bad can water get while traveling through piping, how is my country relevant here ? If you think you must know at least look on my userpage before complaining, but the only diffrence knowing will give you is that you probably can narrow it down to European Union. I found your site before I asked, but I don't see anything saying quality there, am I mising something ? If you don't get the question, here's my line of thought - the local tradition (which I assume is widespread in the rest of the world too) has it that you should boil water before drinking it as it can contain disease agents. However there was an article in a magazine which claims that tap water is so clean that you can drink it unboiled. We could asume that it is true (therefore a list comparing diffrent countries or perhaps cities of the world would be handy) or that it is not true, because the water might have been contaminated on its way to my house. The water supplier routinely tests the water, but I assume water for testing is taken at the purification plant (which BTW is at other side of the city). From there to my home the only place it can get contaminated is in pipes from there to my tap. So, considering all this, is drinking unboiled tap water healthy or not ? ~~Xil (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most people drink municipal piped water straight from the taps in New Zealand, particularly in urban areas. Sometimes you may get recommendations when testing finds contaminants e.g. [5] but I don't think they're particularly common even in the wops.

It's fairly common in Malaysia to boil water before drinking but I wasn't aware it was common in any parts of Europe so you learn something new every day. The Singapore tourist guide assured me (in 2001) it was also okay to drink water straight from the taps there, although I don't know how common that is.

I have to say, your question is somewhat confusing to me. First you lament about people wanting to know where you are so they can help answer your question saying that you only want comparisons of water quality between countries and knowledge of how bad the water may get in the pipes. I would agree that we don't really need to know where you live to answer that. But then at the end of it you say "So, considering all this, is drinking unboiled tap water healthy or not" yet as others have pointed out, this will almost definitely depend on where you live so if you want a useful answer, you do need to tell us where you live, or at least not complain when we guess.

BTW, how bad the water can get in the piping will depend on things like the length and quality of the piping, whether it's chlorinated, the temperature of the water in the piping (which will likely depend somewhat on the average temperature in the area), how long the water stays in the pipes, the quality of the water that enters the pipes etc

Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xil, I see we got of to a bad start. The way you asked your question implied that your mother was wondering why her home city has the best quality water. To answer that question we need to know what city you are talking about. If you were wanting to know, in general, why water tastes different in other areas and how the quality varies in different countries, then those are different questions.

Tap water (at least in most first-world countries) is safe to drink from the tap. Our water purification article describes how 'natural' water is turned into potable (drinkable) water. I can't find an article within Wikipedia that gives a list of what countries tap water is considered healthy enough to drink directly. CS Miller (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Western Europe people drink unboiled tap water all the time. A quick bit of googling found that the US Embassy in Latvia tells US citizens it is safe to drink the water [6] while the Australian government's advice is to boil all tap water before drinking it [7] (those are the two countries that appears on the first page of results). Given conflicting advice, if I were visiting the country I would avoid drinking the water (without boiling it). --Tango (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The local tradition (which I assume is widespread in the rest of the world too) has it that you should boil water before drinking it as it can contain disease agents". No, only in countries that lack the proper infrastructure to supply clean water. In much of rest of the world that doesn't lack this, tap water is usually drinkable straight from the pipes (although of course the flavour may vary). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acctualy, I think microorganisms can thrive, and be killed by boiling, anywhere in the world. I assumed it was common because I read an article once which suggested that in no country in the world water is so clean that you can drink it stright from the tap. I do have noted though that Americans seem to drink from tap and as other English speaking countries seem to have similar culture to USA, Australia is no surprize. I didn't ask why water in my country is good, I said I had argument with my mom, "an argument" usualy implies that there were oposing opinions (in this case on weather it is safe or not to drink tap water). Honestly I hate labeling my self as being of certain country when I am asking a general question, if I wanted to know just about about my country I wouldn't be asking on an international site. Comparision of water quality by country includes any country and you need to know what the piping is made of not in what country it is in to answer about the quality in the particular water supply system so an educated guess would be fine (acctualy never mind I'll ask about piping on science desk). ~~Xil (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you from personal experience that people regularly drink water straight from the tap in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the UK, and Italy, apparently without any ill effect. In many of these places, you will be served tap water in restaurants. In Germany, where I live, tap water is usually superior in quality to bottled water - it's certainly more strictly controlled. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From personal experience I can vouchsafe that. And while you're at it, add Portugal and Scandinavia to that list as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that article you read was simply wrong. Tap water is perfectly safe to drink in many countries. There will be bacteria in the water, even in those countries, but they are harmless (at least to locals that have been exposed to them so much they are completely immune - sometimes drinking tap water in foreign countries can lead to Traveler's diarrhea even though the water is harmless to the locals because it contains different strains of bacteria). --Tango (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, microorganisms and bacteria are common phenomena in drinking water as well as the air we breathe. There is no way to get rid of them all, and some may even be beneficial, the trick regarding healthy drinking water is to eliminate the ones that are actually dangerous to humans. Contrary to popular belief, humans can coexist, and in many instances benefit from bacteria and microorganisms to survive. For examples see skin flora and gut flora. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The human stomach and intestines are equipped to deal with most bacteria even in untreated water, though they might be temporarily upset if they encounter an unfamiliar strain. Advice to boil tap water is given as a precaution and is usually unnecessary in most countries, but for anyone with a sensitive stomach visiting a foreign country for the first time, it might be good advice. Those of us who live in areas without a treated supply, and who regularly drink water from streams in mountain areas, are immune to most of the naturally-occurring bacteria, but there is still a small risk, and I have seen tap water fed from an attic tank (in a "civilised" UK city) that I would be reluctant to drink even after boiling, because boiling will not remove dangerous toxins or heavy metals. Fortunately, such installations are rare, and, in the UK at least, nearly all kitchen taps are connected directly to a safe supply of "mains" water that has a risk of infecting you with dangerous organisms probably lower than the risk in breathing the air. Apologies for the rant! Dbfirs 08:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that this warning might be related either to practice to add heavy doses of chlorine to water in the past (the article which said it sort of implied that it could cause dhiarrea) to which my mom responded that they didn't boil water back then. So since when it is being boiled ? Apparently there was hepatitis outbreak more than twenty years ago in part of city which has diffrent water source (and piping could have been ancient too). I probably should take a water sample and get it tested, but we agreed that our tap water tastes better than the bottled water we buy, when it is not boiled. So thanks for the information, I'll probaly give in ~~Xil (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realised I forgot to mention above that in Malaysia many people have cold water tanks (so the water from the taps may not be direct from the supply) usually on the roof partly because of the legacy of the unreliability of the cold water supply.

The supply isn't that bad although still not brillant. I'm more describing stuff from the late 1990s, I think it's even better now although I think still a lot worse then here NZ where I can't recall ever having no water supply. (Still have some problems though, e.g. one time last year in the area where I lived they shut down the water supply to clean out the water tank they use to supply the area, then couldn't refill it because the pressure was too low so people in that area had an extended period of no water.) It likely depends where you live, where I did the pipes were old and often broke so they'd have to shut off the water supply to fix them usually by cutting out the broken portion and replacing, of course this sort of shutting down the supply and repairing probably didn't help the existing pipes so it's not uncommon to have another broken portion a few days later and I can't help wondering what the pipes actually look like, whether they were a mish-mash of a whole lot of repaired sections.

In my house the kitchen water tap was directly connected to the supply but I think this is relatively rare (it was designed to be like that), generally most taps are connected to the storage tank if one was present AFAIK. I'm not sure whether this is still common in new houses, particularly small terrace houses which don't have much room.

Also I suspect boiling water is as much as anything a tradition that probably isn't really necessary. I think I've read someone (the minister possibly) suggest it wasn't necessary, but I don't think many people paid much attention and I have a feeling the same minister probably didn't generally follow his own advice. Water filters are also fairly common although I have my doubts about whether most actually do anything useful or just make things worse.

BTW, while you don't have to boil it for the purpose, some prefer to drink water stored in the fridge or at least stored in a room since the water direct from the tap can sometimes be fairly lukewarm.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the claim (for example, towards the end of this) that boiling all water before drinking is part of a wider pattern of cooking everything before eating in countries such as China. The claim being that drinking 'raw' water would be seen as as odd/taboo as things like eating snails seem to many British people. Is there any truth to that, in your experience? 82.24.248.137 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself would much rather have some escargot then drink China's water, boiled or not. Googlemeister (talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have any tabooo against raw food, except for health concerns, but people would taste raw food anyway, certainly it is not as disgusting as eating snails ~~Xil (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Black

Resolved

Why is it that Mr./Mrs. Weasley and Dumbledore, both from the Order of the Phoenix, think Black would want to kill Harry? Perhaps I'm missing something. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was framed for betraying Harry's parents to Voldemort, no? Beach drifter (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order_of_the_Phoenix_(organisation)#Sirius_Black Beach drifter (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Until near the end of Prisoner of Azkaban everyone thinks Sirius Black is a Death Eater that betrayed James and Lily Potter and killed Peter Pettigrew. As a Death Eater, they assume he'll want to kill the boy that destroyed his master. After that book, the Order knows better, but most of the rest of the wizarding world continue to believe that until the end of Order of the Phoenix. --Tango (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful -- while rereading, I suddenly had this question. Thanks, all! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although, frankly, the whole set-up makes Dumbledore look terribly negligent, and doesn't really inspire faith in the Wizarding Justice System. I mean, they have a potion that forces people to tell the truth. They have the ability to check what spells a wand last did. They have the ability to extract memories and view them. It would only have taken a moment of "Hang on, let's just make sure we've got all the information from this guy we can", and the whole thing would unravel. Unless, of course, Dumbledore is evil and they're all his pawns. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JK Rowling responds to that question on her website: [8]. --Tango (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A story unravelling when you look closely at its major plot points? Fancy that. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]