Miscellaneous desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 15

Downloadable graph paper

I'm looking for some A4 graph paper to download as a pdf and print off from my printer. In particular what I'm looking for is squared paper with long thin boxes to the left and above. This would be very useful to use when for example you have a list of things down the side and a list of dates along the top, or many other uses. I have already searched a lot for graph paper but have not been able to find this design. Has anyone seen this design anywhere please and could tell me its url? Thanks 92.29.123.139 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want the generator found Here. I'm not sure if "engineer's graph paper" is really the name of it or not; couldn't find any that way with an image search. 81.131.66.11 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find what you need, you could create your own design using an empty spreadsheet, but this isn't an elegant solution. Dbfirs 08:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ace! Thank you 81, solution found. 92.29.112.62 (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does no-one use rulers and a pencil anymore? You can even combine it with modern technology in the form of a photocopier to produce many copies. *And* you control the intellectual property in the design! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F-35 Lightning II vs F-22 Raptor

In an air-to-air fight, which one of these fighters would win? Since the F-22 was designed as an air supremacy fighter, I was under the guise that it would be able to defeat, on average, an F-35. But according to their respective articles, while the F-22 is more maneuverable, the F-35 has more advanced radar and avionics. Since modern air-to-air duels are likely to be fought without line of sight, that is, by radars, wouldn't the F-35 have an edge? Acceptable (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading an article which quoted an Australian pilot as saying that in recent exercises against f-22s they (presumably in f-18s) were almost unable to lock onto them. Even when starting at a tactical disadvantage the F-22s were able to overcome greater numbers of the 'enemy' aircraft because they were so stealthy and so maneuverable. Also, it probably isn't true that modern fighters operate outisde visual range both radar guided and heat-seaking missles can be deceived and avoided by skilled fighter pilots, especially in a stealthy and maneuverable plan like the F-22. See dogfight. Also the existance and teachings of topgun and red flag exercise 203.214.100.65 (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogfights are vanishingly rare recently - especially between roughly equivalent modern planes. See Fourth generation jet fighter#Combat performance for some of the few and rarely "even" battles that have occurred. Rmhermen (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what font is Wikipedia layed out in?

I like the font of Wikipedia.

It looks like Arial but it differs from Arial I have in my Word.

What is the name of Wikipedia font and where can I get it?

Thank you very much, David99.235.39.208 (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It uses a sans-serif font. The exact font used will depend on your browser configuration. Reach Out to the Truth 05:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General text is laid out in a font that depends on your browser but for comparison a few users on this page who sign choosing a particular font are Dbfirs (Verdana), Haus (Bradley Hand ITC), Jack of Oz (Papyrus) and WikiDao (Segoe print). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have the font on your computer by definition — Wikipedia just uses your browser's fonts, which are your computer's fonts. It is probably either Arial or Helvetica. Word has very poor screen font rendering so even nice fonts generally look like crap in it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it is possible for a website to provide fonts which aren't installed on your computer. But Wikipedia does not do this, so the font you see is one you already have. Marnanel (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how important are co-curricular activities for getting into NUS?

can anyone with decent marks in the qualifying examination get into NUS? are co-curricular activities really important? cos i dont have many co-curricular activities, just a state topper gold medal from McMillan, by the way, i'm from India, and i'm applying for undergraduate degree. so how are my chances of getting into NUS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.196.114 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what is NUS? None of the entries at NUS seems to match. --ColinFine (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "co-curricular activities NUS" suggests that they're referring to National University of Singapore. Dismas|^(talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National University of Singapore has an an overseas university in India. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 v. 1939

If the Allies had 2010 military technology at the start of 1939, how much force would be needed to defeat the Nazis if nuclear weapons were not used? How many 1939 fighters or bombers would a 2010 airplane be equivalent to? 92.29.112.62 (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To get anything like a realistic idea, one would have to factor in costs. For instance: A Spitfire cost into days money, about the same as a modern surface to air missile. The problem is that you can only fire a missile once and they do not always bring down their target (you only see them on tv when they do). Also, one factor that lost the Nazi's the war was that their weapons were too good! This meant that they took longer to roll off the production lines. Another problem was that they also required more maintenance because they were more complicated. The advantage of modern weapons is that they allow fewer service personnel to deploy and create large profit for their manufacturers but require more design effort, field backup, taxpayer dollars, etc. So the answer is that such a war could well take a little longer and cost a lot more. If they had to buy from the US again, it would probably be unaffordable too. --Aspro (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate outcomes of World War II are a popular subject for Counterfactual history exercises but the results are only speculative and non-quantitative, though often entertaining. Usually the counterfactual premise has the Axis powers prevailing but the OP's question is about the Allies winning (as they really did) but using different warplanes. A sensible reposing of the question could be What changes in strategy would modern technology make possible that could have made victory quicker and/or less costly?. However the same question without counterfactual technology already has in retrospect various answers. The heavy Allied bombing of Dresden and Hamburg lacked a proportional military value, and casualties on the Omaha Beach on D-Day were excessive due to bad intelligence and preparation. Concerning warplanes, the Germans fielded an early jet fighter but largely wasted its potential by devoting it to inappropriate roles. It can be noted that shooting down a "slow" enemy plane is more difficult from a much faster plane because of the smaller time the target can be held in range. I don't think one can sensibly calculate any quantity x of 1939 fighters that equals a 2010 fighter. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when you consider that an F-14 carrying an AIM-54-C Phoenix missile can locate the Me 109 and fire their missile at a range of 100+ miles, whereas the Me109 would need to get within 2 miles of the F-14 to have the slightest chance to inflict a hit. That would be roughly equivalent to a man with a knife in the dark trying to kill a trained sniper who is wearing night vision goggles and 400 yards away. Googlemeister (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These type questions have been posted before. Unfortunately, the Reference desk cannot predict the future or "what could have been". 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Turtledove wrote a series where an alien race invaded during WWII using Gulf War-era military technology. See Tosev timeline. Rmhermen (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Yes, this is not a type of question that falls within the scope of the ref desk. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 B-2 stealth bombers dropping some smart bombs on the Reichstag and other key objectives in Berlin within 24 hours after they invade Poland would probably solve the problem. If you really want them to quit, hit a couple more of their most heavily guarded locations with cruise missiles and they will realize that you can strike them anywhere, at your convenience, and they can not stop your attack. Googlemeister (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) How many 1939 fighters or bombers would a 2010 airplane be equivalent to? That depends. The Vickers Wellington was built from 1936 to 1945, and served in the RAF between 1938 and 1953. A twin-engine medium bomber, it has the distinction of being the only British bomber produced for the entire duration of World War II; more than eleven thousand were built. (It also has the distinction of being the first British aircraft shot down on the Western Front.) The Wellington carried 4500 lbs of bombs, had a maximum speed of 235 mph, and a range of 2550 miles.

In contrast, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (A and C variants) can carry two 2000 lb bombs in its internal bay. (Of course, since stealth is not a big issue in 1939, it might be better to carry a full load of six bombs - 12,000 lbs - by tucking an extra pair of bombs under each wing.) It has a range of roughly 1400 miles, and probably cruises with a full bomb load at just under Mach 1 (let's say 700 mph). The naive calculation says, then, that the F-35 can carry three times the bomb load and (counting re-arming time on the ground) travels twice as fast, so each F-35 'counts' for six medium bombers.

Of course, that's a silly result that grossly underestimates the potency of these aircraft in a 1939 environment. While it might take dozens or even hundreds of WWII 'dumb' bombs to hit a given target once, guided shots from a modern jet are going to hit their mark at least one time in three. (Call that a fifty-fold multiplier in effectiveness against specific targets.) The service ceiling of the F-35 is 60,000 feet; there just weren't any aircraft in 1939 that could come close to that altitude, making an F-35 in flight essentially invulnerable. In 1939, in other words, the F-35 would have been an indestructible airplane that could drop thousands of pounds of bombs with astonishing precision. In the first day of the war the Axis forces would have lost their navies — each time an aircraft launches, you can count on taking out another battleship. Heck, London to Berlin is less than six hundred miles — Allied F-35s could have been dropping bombs on the Reich Chancellery for a week before Hitler's forces reached Warsaw. Even assuming that the F-35s were only used for bombing, they could completely paralyze the Wehrmacht by destroying armament and aircraft factories, ironworks, power plants, airfields, military bases, and rail lines — and that's completely neglecting all other 2010 military equipment. You can perform a similar comparison between 1939 and 2010 equivalents for other military hardware if you like; I provide the F-35 as just one example. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not remotely that simple. Modern aircraft have their own problems. An F22 Raptor requires more than 30 hours of maintenance per hour of flight, at a price tag of US$ 50000 per flight hour. After 300 flight hours, it is out of operation for a full months of maintenance. The US has decided to cap procurement at 187 Raptors due to the price tag (estimates differ, but it's somewhere around US$ 200 million per aircraft). By comparison, a single Essex class aircraft carrier would have carried around 100 airframes (and the US build 24 of them in WW2). The Nazis build 33000 Bf 109s and 20000 FW190s. As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all of its own". Modern weapon systems have been designed for different tasks and with different priorities than WW2 systems. They can carry out individual strikes with near impunity, but its unclear if they would be cost-effective against a sufficiently determined enemy. I recommend Turtledove's Tosev timeline for a fictional (but, once you swallow the basic premise, plausible) treatment of the subject (and it's a great read, too ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we are in the area of science fiction the Nazis would have developed similar technology - after all they had supurb scientists and great manufacturing. Thus it wouldn't have been todays technology against yesterdays. It would have been a contemporary battle. What assumptions one then makes about the capability of each side - in technology, strategy, tactics and logistics would lead to some interesting possible scenarios.95.176.69.82 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been interesting, as the Nazis were devloping rocket based (or something like that) fighters that were way ahead of the Ally planes, unfortunately only a few were made and toward the end of the war, the nazis destroyed all of them to prevent leaking secrets. 70.241.19.66 (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate or fortunate?Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate for those who would like to have known what they were up to. Who knows but what it might have accelerated the pace of rocket development. Although bringing Von Braun in was like the next-best thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

70 is referring to the rocket-powered Messerschmitt Me 263 and the jet-powered Messerschmitt Me 262 aircraft, both of which were operational during World War 2. 70's last statement is incorrect. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops, that's what I learned... 70.241.19.66 (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Messerschmitt Me 263: it says Americans captured the three prototypes. A comment made at the time was that far from hiding their innovations, German engineers seemed proud to show what they had achieved. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A hopeless mismatch of technology can make for a speedy conclusion to war, although I doubt the one you present would be quite as short as 38 minutes. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Older military technology versus more modern has ended badly for the retro forces when open combat has taken place in recent years. How did Hussein's "mother of all battles" end when his dated military equipment went against more modern weapons systems? It was a slaughter of epic proportions. Old tanks versus modern aircraft ended badly for the older forces. A British nuclear attack sub made very short work of the WW2 cruiser in the Falklands War. 30 years difference in technology is a horrible mismatch. A 70 year mismatch in open warfare would be dismal. Sniping about cost of modern systems does not mean that one a modern force who could direct pinpoint attacks to enemy forces would not have an easy time of it. The modern forces could disrupt command and control and radar on day 1, then would know the disposition of enemy forces, could decode or disrupt any radio transmissions, and could kill any collection of enemy personnel or destroy any collection of armor or any artillery. The 1940 forces would be reduced to wearing civvies and blending in with the local civilian population to conduct ambushes of the occupying forces and sabotage. Edison (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old vs. new technology can be seen in the Afghan war (and in many others). You can fight them, but then, they re-organize into some guerrilla or resistance movement and counterattack. The question here seems to be to avoid direct confrontation. 80.58.205.105 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many modern planes would it have taken to defeat the Nazis - one, two, three - more? 2.97.210.25 (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film The Final Countdown looks at this premise, in a way. The storyline has a modern aircraft carrier encountering a natural phenomenon that transports it through time back to December 1941, where the single ship and its aircraft could theoretically wipe out the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor before it even occurs. --McDoob AU 93 19:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you know where Hitler and pals are going to be, you probably just need 1. Googlemeister (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the typical time-travel paradox, in that World War II provided a lot of the impetus towards improving our military hardware. No Pearl Harbor, delayed entry into the war, Hitler takes over Europe and keeps it, develops the A-bomb first, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question is not so much speculative but factual. How many moving targets (like a 1939 convoy of bombers or fighters) could a 2010 fighter destroy? 92.28.247.44 (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An F-15 can carry a maximum of 11 AIM-120 missiles I think, giving it the capability to take out 11 enemy aircraft (maybe only 9-10 considering the possibility of a dud or a successful dodge) that it could eliminate with impunity. Could probably get a couple more if he decided to close for some 20mm action. Googlemeister (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My friend's dog has a weird lump

Hi, My Friend's weiner dog has a weird lump about the size of a baseball where his right testicl should be.. He's about 11 to 12 has been fixed since he was a puppy... When I asked if she had taken him to the vet for it she said No.. soooo I wanna figur out whats wrong with the little guy. If you have any answers or anything that can help I would love it!! I also have a picture of the lump incase anybody needed to see to help. ~ Aleah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.70.38.1 (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give medical advice, even for pets. Please advice your friend to take his dog to the veterenarian. --Jayron32 17:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that you and your friend should not be trusting the half-assed advice of random Internet strangers when it comes to your health, or, presumably, the health of a dog you care about. Your friend needs to consult a veterinarian if she is concerned. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lump the size of a baseball? Please, upload the picture. 80.58.205.105 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do that, just post a link to the photo, I don't especially feel like viewing such a photo. Googlemeister (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, forget about uploading the picture and take the poor thing to a vet. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . . or even ask your friend why she has so little concern for the health and comfort of her dog, after all that time she must feel something for him. Richard Avery (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not everyone treats their dog like a fur-baby. Veterinarians cost money, and not everyone is willing to shill out for every time their dog gets a boo-boo. Like with all expenditures, Mr. 208.70's friend must weigh the costs and benefits of taking the dog to a dog doctor. If they feel that the dog can probably get better without a vet visit, and they are willing to take the risk that they can not, then it isn't worth taking the dog to the vet. Telling someone to visit a doctor is just as much medical advice as saying that they shouldn't. Buddy431 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think something whose description "sounds like" a tumor or other abnormal condition is likely to "get better" on its own. Telling someone to see a doctor is NOT "medical advice". Only a doctor can make a diagnosis. Telling someone NOT to see a doctor IS "medical advice", because by doing so you've just made a diagnosis, which you're not qualified to do. Lecturing the OP about the potential cost is really none of our business - that's up to the OP to decide. And besides that, since we can't make a valid diagnosis, we also cannot estimate the cost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs are conscious beings and have a sense of self, so can feel pain and suffer as humans can. Its imperative that it gets taken to a vet as soon as possible. You may be able to help your friend by finding out if any free vetinary treatment is available in your area. Perhaps your nearest branch of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals could give you such information. 92.29.127.207 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sleeping dog is not a conscious being, but dogs can become irate if people let on that the dog is fibbing, so better to let sleeping dogs lie. Googlemeister (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Being pissed off by stupid people?

Why do some people get pissed off when they meet people less intelligent/wise than them? (or those who they deem less intelligent/wise). It is actually an advantage if someone has less wit than you, isn't it? Quest09 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because people are interconnected, and so we all depend on each other for things. When the person I am depending on is too stupid to do their own job correctly, that has a direct impact on me. --Jayron32 18:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem has to do with the concept of intelligence in the first place. Since the definition of intelligence (or wisdom) is so complex, individuals can come to divergent conclusions about the intelligence of others. When two people meet, each can both see the other as "less intelligent." I personally am certain that everyone is a moron, but then I'm a confirmed misanthrope and cynic. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people spend all day getting pissed off at just about anything. It's understandable for someone to be annoyed if another person is adversely affecting them through lack of intelligence, but I assume you're talking about the kind of people who get angry at a "stupid" person simply for existing. I don't know why, they are just angry people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.25 (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The types who get pissed off and call the other person "stupid" or whatever, never stop to think that, if they were really "stupid" it would not be their fault, and calling them names is only going to make matters worse. If a person is "too stupid to do their own job correctly", they should never have been employed in that job in the first place. Any anger should be directed at the management of the organisation, not the employee. But unthinking name-callers are like that; all they care about is immediately venting their own stuff at very easy targets, no matter who gets dumped on and damaged in the process. Which is worse: being stupid, or being a bully and a coward? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that when people are stupid it's never their fault. It frequently is, because they just don't value intelligence and knowledge, so have chosen not to learn what they should to do their job. The store clerk who remains blissfully unaware of his store's inventory comes to mind. On two separate occasions a clerk has told me "we don't carry that product", and then I find it on the shelf, myself. (It might actually be that they we're unsure, or did know they carried it, but didn't know where, and decided that lying to me was the quickest way to get rid of me.) StuRat (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but is that actually an example of stupidity? It's not something we can turn on and off at will. If you expected the clerk to have learned the inventory, then you must assume they had the capacity to do so. Stupid people are inherently unable to master a complex task like that. What I see there is laziness, not stupidity. Their lying to you and thinking they'd get away with it - maybe that's the act of a stupid person, but it still doesn't make the liar stupid. Basically, my position is: doing an <adjective> act does not make you an <adjective> person. And that applies just as much to good acts as it does to bad acts. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interconnection comment above raises the key issue. While "stupid" or "idiot" are terms often used, it's more about "ignorance" and "unhelpfulness", and the resultant frustration. For example, getting unsatisfactory answers from a sales clerk in a store, or from a "help desk" call. "Ignorance" can be fixed. As Will Rogers said, "Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects." "Unhelpfulness" is much harder to fix. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having superior wit is an advantage (as the OP asks) only in a competitive situation and not always then, since it sometimes seems that angels watch over the simple minded. However it is irritating to perceive that others are failing to assist in a task, or to be as impressed as one thinks they should be, because they lack intelligence. A person who is victimised by idiots could say they are being pissed on not off by stupid people. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer for "some people", but If evolution would hurry up and eliminate the gene that makes people incapable of telling whether or not their coupons apply to the transaction they're trying to make then I, personally, would be a lot more serene. APL (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coupon producers seem to delight in making this needlessly complex, in the hope that some poor souls will end up paying full price. For example, I recently bought some canned veggies, which were supposedly on sale, only to be told that the sale prices don't apply to the "no salt added" version I bought. But, of course, there was nothing on the coupon specifying which sodium levels were worthy of a discount, and which were not. StuRat (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I am not pissed off with people of lower intelligence who use it to the best of their ability. I do get pissed off with people who have the ability but don't think things through. -- Q Chris (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the U.S. Map

I have many times said to myself, I wish I knew the states on a map. This is no burning desire, just one of those things that comes up at odd times when knowing it might have been useful, even for a trivia question (I actually know all of the state capitals). Spatial things have always given me trouble though. Anyway, I thought someone might know of an online game or something that helps you learn the map in an engaging way. I am not completely out of it. I can pick off New York, Texas, Florida, Washington and a few others, but I am still shockingly ignorant.--108.14.193.125 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search for "online game states" and found this one right away. I found it quite hard for the first few placements, but a bit easier as I went. There were, of course, many more results from that search, you'll have to try some out to see if they fit your needs. --LarryMac | Talk 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did much the same and found this. Dismas|^(talk) 22:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good. Has no ads, and has tutorials. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just played the first game above four times and it was terrible. My average error was "193 miles". I suppose if I play it a few hundred times I'll learn. Thanks a bunch.--108.14.193.125 (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda liked the first one; average error of 3 miles. After you got the first few in, the rest kinda fell into place. The old Atari computers back in the day had an excellent "States and Capitals" game, as I recall. It highlighted the state, and asked you to name it and provide the name of its capital. There was also a "European Countries and Capitals" that worked much the same way; that one was much harder, considering my America-centric geography lessons in school. That said, considering it was still Cold War Europe, there weren't quite as many countries then as there are now. --McDoob AU 93 05:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the ones on this site. In some ways, a little simpler than the others mentioned above, but they have a large number of maps, including countries, states, provinces, etc. No advertising either, which is nice. Matt Deres (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I learned the state shapes from a wooden jigsaw puzzle. That was sixty years ago, but with two exceptions they haven't changed much. There was a little squabble around Wendover, Utah, but it seems to have fizzled out. PhGustaf (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other one might have been the argument over Moosylvania. Since the OP knows the capitals, that's a plus. The jigsaw puzzle idea would be an excellent choice, and I expect that kind of thing is still available. There are also such maps with magnets for the states. What might help even more is learning the topography of the USA first, and then seeing where the state lines have been drawn. Work from the general to the specific, and it makes more sense. Maybe also studying how the states were added chronologically. You'll know you've got it covered when you see the name of a state and immediately form a mental picture of its shape (and believe it or not, I still do get Wyoming and Colorado confused sometimes.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with jigsaw puzzles is that the tiny states are difficult to handle. Thus, you might find some of the smaller states joined together in an attempt to keep them from getting stuck under your fingernails. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe true, and likely less a problem with the wooden ones. Still, you're onto something. As I said before, don't try to learn all 50 at once. Start with the "13 original colonies" and get them firmly in your mind. Then begin the "westward migration". Learning the shapes is relatively easy in many cases. There's nothing that looks anything like Florida or Texas, for example. Something about a state's shape could even be a good memory device. Oklahoma looks like a large frying pan. Iowa looks like a rectangle that someone has been nibbling on. Lower Michigan looks like a large mitten, while upper Michigan looks like a tree branch, or some fancy it looks like a deer's head. And so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming and Colorado are the ones hardest to distinguish by shape. You have to remember what color they are. PhGustaf (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And that one of them is just north of the other one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Florida: America's wang." - Homer Simpson :-) StuRat (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Given that, you might be able to guess what the Mississippi delta is sometimes called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the original 13 colonies could be confusing, as Massachusetts included what is now Maine, and Virginia included what is now West Virginia. StuRat (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going to those exotic lands might be another approach. When you get out of the cities it's amazing how big the earth is. Shadowjams (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea but it could take awhile. Plus you can't see the shapes from ground level (except maybe for Rhode Island). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good one. The link is to the US quiz, but I first got the link to their world quiz some time ago and I recommend it - it's good fun even if it's frustrating to barely scrape the 100 mark even if you aren't exactly geographically challenged. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This amused me, though as a non-American I expect I missed some of the jokes. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's Statetris. APL (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sites are much better than the way that I learned the Canadian provinces. I used to stare at a map in my high school economics class and eventually memorized them from east to west. Though, it's been many years and I've forgotten them... Still passed Econ as well... Dismas|^(talk) 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Supply and Demand". According to Father Guido Sarducci, that's all you need to know about Economics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eduMap is good, I even learned the mid-Western square ones (it's also available as an Opera widget). The key is to go back after a couple of months and learn it again. Blakk and ekka 18:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember the Four Corners: clockwise from the northwestern state they are Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. Also remember the Thirteen States, and then focus on the Mississippi River Valley. Once you have those down, the rest are easier to remember. ~A H 1^(TCU) 16:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always found it helpful to learn a bit about the history of the states. When they were first settled, each state was much smaller because they didn't realise quite how vast the area was. Later, they ended up using rivers and longitude and latitude for borders. If you can get your head around the rivers that'll help. Also, watching a program like Stephen Fry in America isn't unhelpful! Of course, I say all this from a Brit's point of view (and I got 61 miles average error, which I don't think is too bad)Worm 14:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]