Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 January 9

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

January 9

Something about Mount Everest

I don't understand how Mount Everest's prominence is equal to its height. The Mount Everest page only provides one clue—a link to Topographic prominence—but the description there doesn't make sense either. Just because a mountain is the highest point in a continent shouldn't mean its prominence is equal to its height. And Mt. Everest doesn't just drop down to the Indian Ocean, either, because it's hundreds of miles from any significant body of water and there's the huge valley of the Ganges River between them. I measured the prominence on Google Earth and my most optimistic estimate is 4,700 metres (15,400 ft) for the prominence—the place where I measured it, at the junction of the two big glaciers that flow off the south and west sides of the mountain, is at somewhere around 4,160 metres (13,650 ft). I know the real prominence should be somewhere around 3,700 metres (12,100 ft) (but I'm being generous here). I don't think every single anonymous visitor who leaves the Mount Everest article wondering what the real prominence of the mountain is will take the trouble to use Google Earth to search for the prominence. What I mean in summary is that many people—especially aspiring climbers—would want to know how much the mountain rises above the surrounding terrain. Shannon^talk _contribs 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your understandable confusion seems to be that in this context, (Topographic) 'prominence' does not have its general or 'lay' meaning, but is a technical term with a precise definition, and that definition means that the tallest peak on any isolated landmass (island or continent) has a prominence equal to its elevation above sea level. The property you are interested in is instead called "height over base" or "base elevation", and the problem with it is that it is difficult both to define and to measure precisely. As the relevant footnote on the Everest article says:

"The "base" of a mountain is a problematic notion in general with no universally accepted definition. However for a peak rising out of relatively flat terrain, such as Mauna Kea or Denali, an approximate height above "base" can be calculated. For Everest the situation is more complicated, since it only rises above relatively flat terrain on its north (Tibetan Plateau) side. Hence the concept of "base" has even less meaning for Everest than for Mauna Kea or Denali, and the range of numbers for "height above base" is wider. In general, comparisons based on "height above base" are somewhat suspect."

Hope this helps to clarify what I agree is a tricky concept to follow in the Topographic prominence article you had linked to. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for clarifying the answer. I did some research while waiting for answers to the questions I posted on various talk pages, but the idea didn't hit me until I posted here. Now I may suggest putting a "Height over base" parameter in the mountain geobox. The figure listed there would be rough, rounded to a few thousand or a few hundred - such as 3,700 m for Everest - and would not apply to smaller mountains. Just a thought. Shannon^talk _contribs 05:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This would probably need to be discussed at WikiProject Mountains, but although I can see such measurements being of interest, I can also foresee opposition because, with so many "heights above base" values being officially unmeasured and open to interpretation, it might lead to a lot of largely pointless arguments and encourage near or actual Original Research: would calculating 'height above base' from contours on a published map constitute OR? - I'm really not sure. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's really dangerous to put seemingly scientific and precise data into an encyclopedia when the things that you are talking about are so fuzzily defined. IMHO, we should talk about height above mean sea level - and leave it at that. But as you say - this is something to discuss at the relevant WikiProject - where you'll probably find that this has already been discussed and agreed. SteveBaker (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No discussion of "height over base"/"base elevation" (by names or concept) there as far as I can see from the discussion page and archives, Steve. There has been some discussion of prominence and a little about "eminence" (which seemed to be an OR invention - prominence*elevation above sea level - by one of the editors and not the same thing), but nothing on this parameter which, to be fair to Shannon, is something I've seen referred to elsewhere despite having no particular interests in this area. However, I'll leave Shannon to pursue it at WikiProject Mountains if s/he chooses. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Eminence" meaning that the mountain's "height over base" is measured from the highest contour line around the mountain that is also connected to another area? For example, if Everest is connected to a neighboring mountain by a 14,000' ridge, then its eminence would be 15,000'.

Sex in the Morning with Morning Breath

Many articles and magazines suggest that sex in the morning when one just wakes up from bed is the most enjoyable due to elevated levels of various hormones. How do people deal with unpleasant morning breath? Or is morning breath not something that affects all people? Acceptable (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It just doesn't, err, come up. More seriously, I think if both people have "morning breath" it is not as big a deal. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Helpful Household Hint: Keep some mints handy at bedside. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And humans are remarkably flexible and adaptable. Lots of options that make morning breath less of an issue. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 08:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Try toothpaste. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can get up to go to the bathroom to get some toothpaste, you may as well use mouthwash and do the job properly. Or were you suggesting you keep a tube near your bed, so as not to have to get up and lose your ... err, mood? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall something David Steinberg once said, and the reference will tell you how long ago this was. He was making fun of movies that show couples making love in the morning before they get up, having "breath like violets", when in reality they would have to "run to the john like Mercury Morris." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither the penis nor the vulva have a sense of smell so there need be no problem. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So everything's peachy as long as you don't kiss or breathe in each others' faces. Yeh, nothing like morning delight! After that, then you dash like Mercury Morris. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

haha not sure why this makes me laugh! Brilliant answer! Gazhiley (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all very well, but what if your other half insists on clamping their mouth all over your face? What would be worse: having to endure their foulness, or being embarrassed about your own foulness even if they don't seem to mind too much?

Everyone who's ever been born has had morning breath, but we can smell that of others more intensely than we can smell our own. So while we're thinking "Yukk! I wish he/she would get their mouth away from my nose", they're probably thinking the same. Obvious solution: just say to each other, "Yukk! Your breath stinks!". How romantic that would be. Guaranteed to enhance the mood of the occasion.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one case where if you both have allergies, congestion, etc., and wake up stuffed up, it's a benefit. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Who cares if you are really in the mood? Also, you don't have to go missionary style and smell each other's breaths. The Great Cucumber (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

just do it already and get it over with! --Talk Shugoːː 21:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You could try holding your breath. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

... but what was the Movie called.

In 1972 there was a fatal train crash involving a school bush in Congers, New York, known as the Gilchrist rail disaster, when a school bus stalled at a level crossing and was struck by an oncoming freight train. A number of students were killed. The NTSB ruled that the bus driver was negligent. I remember a TV movie that I had seen more than once about the incident, but cannot remember the name. In 1980, the movie was due to screen again on New Zealand television, but by a tragic coincidence a similar accident occured in Southland, in which a schoolgirl died, and TV management deemed that showing the movie after that incident might be in poor taste. Does anyone know the name of the movie, since it is not mentioned in the Wiki article about the crash. Thanks. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 05:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

NB. The article in question is Gilchrest Road, New York crossing accident in case anyone needs it. Nanonic (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Long Journey Back" (1978), starring Stephanie Zimbalist. [1] on IMDb. Tevildo (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest The Sweet Hereafter. Karenjc 00:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Ah no, but that was Alton, Texas. Karenjc 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It was also made in 1997 - quite tricky for it to be on the TV in 1980. :) Tevildo (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, but having looked at these movies on IMDB, I see they are not what I am looking for. I may also have gotten wrong the date of the Southland, New Zealand bus and train collision in which the 12 year old girl was killed. It may have been as late as 1983, meaning the movie could have been made as late as that. The one with Stephanie Zimbalist in seems similar, and there was also one made in 1985 called First Steps, in which Judd Hirsch portrayed the famous Dr. Jerrold Petrovsky, who attempted to allow a paralysed girl to walk again after a car wreck. The movie I am trying to find has a scene in which a psychiatrist is sitting in a cafe with one of the young girls who survived, and is eating ice cream, and trying to help her to deal with the guilt she feels about surviving, and the sadness in losing so many friends. I must admit, I assumed this movie was about the Gilchrest crash, because the plot of it, and what did actually happen then over 37 years ago are very sismilar. If any one has any more suggestions, please do not hesitate to say. Thank You. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk

Actually, my sincere apologies. I believe Long Journey Back was the movie I saw, since new information about it has come to light, so thanks very much, The Russian Christopher Lilly 10:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Paypal and direct debit?

If Paypal allows direct debit from your bank account to transfer money from a buyer directly to a seller, without having to add credit to the PayPal site first(?), then what is the point of having a facility to credit your account in the first place? (They have my bank details) Or does the PayPal account first need to be credited with the appropriate amount? Its been so long since I used PayPal I forgot what I did, and the artificial intelligence in place of a human on the PayPal site is, well, unintelligent and cannot answer this question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.198.9 (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

To set up a verified paypal account, paypal send two small amounts of money to your bank account which you must then report back. Without this step, you could concievable enter anyones direct debit information in and have them pay for things. See How do I verify my PayPal account?. Nanonic (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So this is really only a security measure? Does it have any other applications? For example, supposing someone put all their money from their bank account into PayPal and then closed their bank account, could they still purchase items? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.198.9 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If PayPal held your actual cash money that you transferred to them, they would be a fiduciary and would transfer funds under your direction. Presumably your "direction" would be logging in with a password. Getting more money into the PayPal account would be a bit of a trick though, you might need to buy postal money orders and mail them to PP or pay Western Union to do a money transfer into your PP account. However, if you prepay money into your PP account, it is still your money and you can spend it from PP without using a bank account. Franamax (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I think it's also to do with the speed of transaction - if the money's already in ur paypal act, it will transfer quicker to seller.. If they've gotta take it directly from ur act it's gonna add time, and ur less likely to get positive feedback or at least a lesser feedack if it takes longer... For example the seller wont see your money for at least 6-8 days if it's gotta be taken from a bank account and then transferred to them, 3-5 days if its from a credit card, and within 48 hours if the money's already in your paypal account... This is my experience as a seller through paypal anyway... So I think the variety of methods is to provide choice... Gazhiley (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Martini mishap

So I have a stainless steel martini shaker—a Cobbler shaker, to be specific, sort of like the one in the first photograph in the shaker article. I was shaking a frosty martini up last night, and the dang thing fell off the counter. It landed top-end down with a thunk. There are no obvious signs of damage, no breakage.

Here's the tough part. I can't get it open anymore. I think it must of wedged the pieces together just enough to make them damn near impossible to pry apart. They were never very easy to pry apart anyway, especially while the internal contents were cold (metal contracts, etc.), but now that the temperature has stabilized, I still can't make them budge. There is no obvious way for me to try and pry them apart, much less without scratching it up.

Any suggestions for recovering this shaker? It still has its martini contents in it (and now with a load of melted ice), if that helps. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What about heating the lid, which should make the rim expand? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Try WD40. Turn the shaker upside down so the liquid can gain access, and leave a couple of hours.Froggie34 (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Such accidents can be the result of having one tee many martoonies. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You'd think, right? But actually it prevented me from having one! --Mr.98 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Boil the contents. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: heating the lid didn't help. Even creating an extreme temperature difference (boiling the top, freezing the bottom) would not budge it at all. WD40 has not yet helped any either. Might try all-out boiling but I think air can escape (some liquid can escape) so that might prevent it from popping off that way. Ugh. What a pain. It is really on there tight—I can't get it to move at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Duct tape is your friend. Seal the gap where the two halves meet, and then set the shaker upright in a deep pan of boiling water. When the contents boil, the top should pop off (perhaps violently, so cover to pot). DOR (HK) (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty dangerous advice...although it might work. Once the contents (which we know are liquid) boil, the increase in pressure inside might well pop the lid right off. (Although if it's not symmetrically wedged on, you might just get a fizzle of steam along one short stretch of the circumpherence. However, the amount of over-pressure needed to pop the lid might just result in an impressive explosion when the lid does come off - with superheated steam blasting out and an impressive vapor explosion as the vaporized alcohol hits the heat source. So if you really want to consider doing that - you need to be a long way away from anything fragile...like people...and houses...and (especially) me!! No - I honestly don't think this is a good suggestion - sadly.

You could do the reverse - put the thing into a vacuum chamber and pump the pressure down to the point where the internal pressure would pop the lid. It's hardly less dangerous though since the 'overpressure' would be the same.

I think what I would actually do if I were in your position would be to try to create some asymmetry - perhaps by tapping down on one side of the lid with a rubber mallet or something. Once the lid is at an angle to the body you might be able to twist it loose...I don't hold out much hope of that working - but it's the most practical suggestion I can come up with.

If you had a couple of those 'strap wrenches' that they use to remove subborn oil filters from car engines - you could probably use them to grip the lid and body more firmly and thereby get enough leverage to 'unscrew' one from the other. I have one with a rubber strap that would be unlikely to damage your cocktail shaker...but you'd need two of them I think.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are great suggestions: buy a vacuum chamber, hit it or go at it with SteveBaker's car tools. How about drilling a hole in the base and shoving a steel rod through the hole to pop off the lid. Then have a plate welded over the hole. Nobody need see that. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel distraught that one of my brethren should be suffering in such a manner :( Lemon martini (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wear rubber gloves when trying to pry the two parts apart. Latex examination gloves are fine, or dish-washing gloves. The "grip" is greatly enhanced this way. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Get one of those things for opening jars that has something to grip the lid at one end and a long handle, then you can get some leverage on it. If you can start it twisting then it should come loose. You may want to hold the base between your feet so you can get a better grip on it (or use 2 jar openers). --Tango (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Having pondered on this for some hours, I think judicious bashing of the stuck top, a la SteveBaker's rubber mallet suggestion, is the more likely avenue. You would want to grasp the body of the shaker in one hand, and try to ensure that the direction of travel of the rubber hammer is in the general direction of opening the thing, rather than closing it. And you might have to be prepared a) to bash away for some time until you get a result and b) for the contents immediately to disgorge themselves onto the floor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say just write off the loss of your martini and make another one in a different shaker. Googlemeister (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: So I did try boiling it, well aware of the possible dangers and steps were taken to minimize them. Nevertheless, nothing happened. It is on there TIGHT and I'm not sure I can get it hot enough to compensate for that. It will not budge. I tried using a very strong vise (carefully covered so as not to scratch) as a means of trying to deform the lower portion a bit so that some kind of gap could form between the two sections (which I could then use to wedge it out). No progress at all. I've tried some bashing and banging and no dice. Won't budge. There's obviously just enough give that some liquids can get through, over time, but it is otherwise totally immobile. It won't move or twist or anything. It is sealed on there GOOD. I've basically written it off—anything I think I could do that would separate the two pieces would probably damage them to a point that fixing said damage would cost more than the shaker. Oh well. Lesson learned! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A Query about White Magic

I am a Christian, and as such believe that any magic, so-called "white" or otherwise, comes from Satan. However, my stepmother has a book entitled A Dictionary of Angels. In the back of this book are several incantations for summoning (supposedly) benevolent angels to do one's bidding. As I cannot believe that an angel that is not fallen would do the bidding of the devil, I am in somewhat of a state of confusion. Can anyone help?

Thank you for your time.

JJohnCooper (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It's all made-up nonsense. There is no such thing as magic (black or white). Angels, devils, satan, santa clause, the easter bunny and god(s) do not exist. My wife insists that she is in fact the tooth fairy - but I'm skeptical about that too). No confusion is necessary - merely a little clear-headed rationalism. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, Steve... but I was kinda hoping for a response which assumes that religious people are NOT raving lunatics. :) JJohnCooper (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah - sorry. In that case I can't help. SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Disregarding SteveBaker's rampant materialism (combined with poor spelling and inability to capitalize), let's actually look at the theology behind this. Angels are certainly part of Christianity, being mentioned in the Bible several times. It's also true that practitioners of magic are condemned, with no distinction made between 'black' and 'white' magic. In Christianity an angel is a direct messenger of God; their presence is frequently equated with God himself. In either case the purpose is to do God's bidding. God sends angels for special purposes. They have great power, slaying thousands in some Bible stories.

Now what is the likelihood that an angel is going to turn up because you spoke correctly some words you read in a book? If you are summoning him for your own purposes, then that's getting dangerously close to blasphemy - trying to use God for your own devices. If you really need an angel, then ask God - God answers prayers and is always listening. He's not going to refuse you something you need just because you don't get the words right. (He may not agree with you on what you need, of course). Also an angel is going to do God's bidding, not yours. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(After multiple edit conflicts) :Ok, guys, enough of the name-calling. This is an encyclopaedia and not a forum. Anyway, to answer the OP's question in a more logical way, where in the Bible did it say that any magic, black or white, was from Satan? I'm sure it did, somewhere or other, but then, why does Jesus start turning water into wine (ok, believers call this a miracle, and for some reason miracles are different from magic, but then intoxicating substances are also mentioned in the bible as being from Satan, so how could it be a miracle that in turning water to wine Jesus made something from Satan to give to the guests of a wedding?) Don't worry, JJohnCooper, the bible is riddled with contradictions all the way through it. I wouldn't trouble myself if I were you. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I had not intended to try any of the spells, regardless of any responses. KageTora, look at Deuteronomy 18: "Let there not be found among you... a fortuneteller, asoothsayer, chamer, diviner, or caster of spells..." And Clayworth, I have had prayers answered many times. But you're right on one point: Why would an angel come because of some stupid words on a page? However, I now have a new question: Is it possible that those spells would call up a demon in the guise of an angel? JJohnCooper (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

KageTora: Magic is different from miracles. The power behind a miracle is from God, and for Magic is from somewhere else. The Bible does not explicitly say that magic is from Satan, but it does condemn its use. I can point you at the places if you like. I'm surprised you didn't find that in your detailed study of the Bible - the one you used to determine that it is full of contradictions.

JJohnCooper, I would think it very unlikely that the words do anything at all. Believing in God does not have to make you ridiculously credulous. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DJ, are you aware that your edit increased the size of the page by exactly 666 bytes? --Trovatore (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, KageTora, the substance Jesus transformed from water was non-alcoholic wine, as the guests considered it to be of surpassing quality, and the best wines in those days were actually thick, almost syrupy drinks which had no alcohol content. JJohnCooper (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Psalm 104: He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. That's grape juice?? --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"[T]he best wines in those days were actually thick, almost syrupy drinks which had no alcohol content"? What is your source for this information? Give me a link to a (non-religious) page which states exactly what you have just said. Otherwise, I shall take the words of the bible to be literal, using the word 'wine', which means, 'wine', and not 'fruit juice'. I do understand that as a Christian you will have an answer for everything, but I was just trying to help you in your question. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be a better response if you asked what would the Bible tell me to do if an angel did appear? Would it suggest the angel could be a demon in disguise? Otherwise, what you're actually asking us is akin to asking if magic exists. For the most part, people on this desk are willing to theorise within fictional stories or, indeed, religion, so long as your questions don't directly presume them to be true. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

All right. To rephrase: Is there anything in classical Jewish or Christian legend or scripture to suggest that a spell for conjuring an angel might actually call up a demon? JJohnCooper (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not quite on the mark, but the story of the Witch of Endor might be of interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That was helpful, Bugs, though that case involved a demon posing as a ghost rather than an angelic spirit. Thanks for the link. JJohnCooper (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blasted edit conflicts... I have read of instances where demonic entities posed as angelic ones, but the concerned individuals had not attempted to summon either. JJohnCooper (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you take the Bible seriously, there were plenty of non-evil people who did magic. Moses was apparently quite accomplished, and widely considered one of the good guys. So there's no way to believe in the Bible and believe that magic only comes from Satan. The thing is full of examples of God doing magic by himself, and his priests/prophets doing magic (presumably powered by God.) Friday (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

God does magic? That's certainly not a biblical assertion. Notwithstanding the dispute between Maimonidies and Nachmonidies on the subject of the existence of magic, God certainly does not perform magic. Magic, according to the aforementioned sages of Jewish thought, consists of incantations uttered in order to call upon the powers of beings that will then allow one to perform said magic -- something God would certainly not do. Much like we strike a match and allow the phosphorus to receive enough friction to ignite the head of a match, without the match determining whether the person holding it is a righteous individual or not, so too does tapping into a higher spiritual plane, as Moses did, not require one to be morally agreeable. Bilaam is one such example of an evil 'magician.' In reality, though, he just knew the metaphysics involved in reaching a higher spiritual plane. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Magic, ... consists of incantations ... to call upon the powers of beings that will then allow one to perform said magic." -- That's a circular definition, which doesn't help. For this discussion to have any meaning we really need to define magic (other than by reference to itself). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what the OP is worried about is if, when trying to summon an angel, he could accidentally summon a demon or something. JJohnCooper, I really wouldn't worry about it. If these things are as powerful as it is claimed they are, they'd be all over the place turning up whenever they felt like it, and not having to wait until someone accidentally says 'Ftumch' or something. Seriously, I wouldn't worry about it. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We could go to the pictures, or go "blibblblibblblibble" Tevildo (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For the OP, there's 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 : "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.". This is probably more likely to be intended metaphorically than literally, although such viewpoints are always controversial when it comes to the Bible. Tevildo (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP starts with premise after premise concerning his beliefs (for or against). And ends up aware that he is confused. Not surprised. Maybe it would be better to start with facts and evidence and draw conclusions from them. Without that starting point he will remain confused and struggling to reconcile the impossible. Fantasy land was never meant to be more than allegorical. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, but there are many people (whose websites, in addition to the vices frequently mentioned here, have embedded MIDIs of "angelic" music and JavaScript fireflies that chase the cursor) who claim to _have_ the facts and evidence that such an approach requires. Perhaps the best advice is to - I'd say "critically examine" if that phrase did not have unfortunate connotations - not take an overly-credulous approach to any source of information. On a separate point, although I hesitate to actively recommend an author whose prose style and reputation in the industry are rather suboptimal, the OP might find that Roger Elwood's books present a view of angels that's consistent with his theology and might go some way to answering his doubts if taking a more sceptical approach to the issue isn't on the table. Tevildo (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Possibility 1) The people writing the angel books are con-artists or delusional, and nothing will happen if you use their spells.

(Possibility 2) The people writing the angel books are in possession of an amazing truth hitherto denied to generations of scholars, and if you use the spells you will get your own personal angel.

(Possibility 3) As above, except magic is Satanic so your "angel" will be a demon in disguise.

(Possibility 4) It's all nonsense, and you could employ your time, money and conscience better elsewhere.

We have no special insight - find a pin and take your pick.

Is that pin with or without angels dancing on the head of it? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer to that time-honored question is, "Either all of them, or none of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Karenjc 23:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wine in the Bible was normally non alcoholic. Jesus warned about the leaven of the Pharisees, and as much as representing the idea of false doctrine, leaven was also seen as a corrupting influence. The Jews mostly ate unleavened bread. The Bible has a multitude of verses condemning drunkenness, so there is no way Jesus would have made Merlot or Riesling back then 2000 years ago. As for magic, all is evil. Witches claim to practise white magic to look good. Only outright Satanists would not hide their true nature, although all witches are serving Satan. Of course, without realising, so is everyone who is not doing God's will. Miracles also are not always from God, and if one wants God to act for them, He will do so according to His will, but not by letting anyone summon an angel as if it were a genie. The Russsian. C.B.Lilly 07:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Sorry to keep 'wining' on :) , but still nobody has given me any link to an article written by a scholar (archaeologist, etc., not Biblical scholar) proving to me that the word from the bible translated as 'wine' refers to a drink which was not, in fact, wine, but a non-alcoholic drink which must obviously have been made in a vastly different way from its alcoholic counterpart. Also, why would the same word 'wine' be used in the numerous places in the bible which warn against drunkenness? Surely, at least to avoid confusion and conversations like this in the future, they would have chosen a different word? --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 14:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth we have an article: Magic and religion. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

To the OP, you need to be aware that Christianity does not have the monopoly on angels. The angels in your stepmother's book come from Gnostic thought, not Christian. Therefore you should have no problem with this: it's a different (but similar) belief system. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just remember the most important lesson from the bible: If angels DO come to your house, and a rabble forms and demands you release the angels to them so as they may "know" them. Give instead the mob your two virgin daughters, so they can do to them as is good in their eyes.. Genesis 19.. Vespine (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! Good one! SteveBaker (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Considering what Lot's daughters got up to afterwards, I don't think they'd have objected too strongly. And it should be mentioned that the angels originally wanted to spend the night on the street, to find out _exactly_ how wicked Sodom was... :) Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

O.o *Watches as innocent question spawns a debate which rapidly spirals out of control*

KageTora, I got the wine info from a Jentezen Franklin video which my youth leader showed the class at one meeting. I don't know the title of the sermon, but he cited some fairly reputable sources.

I'd like to apologize for the way I worded my response to DJ Clayton and KageTora waaaaay ^ up there; it implies that most of what Clayton said is not correct (which it is) and that I didn't value Tora's input (which I did.) Just wanted to clear that up. JJohnCooper (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'll just have to take your word about being told the wine was non-alcoholic, then, because I have found no reference whatsoever anywhere to anything that states this, other than Christian websites. No worries about the way your response was worded - I didn't take it that you didn't value my input because, after all, we have continued to converse on the topic since. The only thing I can say is, nobody calls me 'Tora'. If my name is shortened, people call me 'Kage'. :) --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This being the refdesk, can I point all participants to the article on Christianity and alcohol? Summary: JJC's position is not unheard of but is clearly a minority one in "mainstream" Christianity. Of course there are those who think mainstream Christians aren't really Christians; I don't know if he's in that camp or not.

My personal prejudice is that all this finding of ways to make Jesus a teetotaler comes from a tradition that's far too skeptical of physical pleasure of any sort. "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they called him a drunkard and a glutton". But I don't claim any special expertise. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got it figured out - just email me the words of the incantation - I'll read them and let you know if any angels show up. You're off the hook afterlife-wise - and I'm no worse off because if all of this nonsense is true I'm screwed anyway. Easy! SteveBaker (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@SteveBaker "klaatu barada nikto". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks! That got rid of that damned great silver robot that's been standing in my back yard for the last year...but sadly, no personal Angels yet. SteveBaker (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

...or 'Ftumch'. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 16:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That only works on robots called Gort! You have to add a 'gesundheit' at the end to call up evil spirits.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve... um... if you did call up a demon it would probably end up killing you. None of us wants that... or at least I don't.

I'm not a teetotaler; my youth pastor was making a point. I do believe, however that being drunk is a sin. Drinking is not; drunkenness is. JJohnCooper talk I forgot to log in on this...

silver slugger requirements

I need to know what qualifications are for silber slugger award in US baseball. if player is in 1 game and gets 2 for 4, will he get it if all other players are below .500? What if he plays half season and get injury when his BA is .450, will he get it?

Silver Slugger winners are voted for. I'm sure the voters take the player's at bats, etc. into consideration. Woogee (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Silver Slugger Award does not get into criteria, but it's reasonable to assume that the personnel who vote for this award would only consider players who had played most of a season, and they certainly wouldn't vote for a guy who played just 1 game. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Silver Slugger isn't awarded for any particular game; it's awarded at the end of the season and is based on the entire season's accomplishments. Like the Golden Gloves, the awards are voted upon by the coaches and managers and the voters are free to vote for whomever they want, sometimes with bizarre or embarrassing results. For example, in 1999 Rafael Palmeiro was awarded the Gold Glove award at first base, despite only playing 28 games in the field. So, while I agree with Bugs that it's unlikely that anyone would win the Silver Slugger award for playing just one game, baseball voters tend to make stupid decisions based on frankly bizarre ideas on a regular basis, so I wouldn't put anything past them. Matt Deres (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If we were talking about the batting champion, and not the Silver Slugger, a player is required to have at least 3.1 plate appearances for each game his team plays in order to qualify (unless the player would still have the highest batting average if enough hitless at-bats were added to reach the 3.1 average mark.) So for that award at least, you can't just have a good game or a season shortened too much by injury. --Onorem♠Dil 15:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True. The batting championship is based on stats. The Silver Slugger Award is an opinion poll, so it's subject to whims, just as other awards like MVP and Cy Young and so on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Locating a business

Hi, I'm looking to find the contact details for a games shop, but I only have its location (London, ish) and the (fairly uncommon) first name and nationality of its owner to go on. What's the best way to find them? Does any part of the directory enquiries menagerie have enough data that this could be pieced together? Or will I need to do some more heavyweight sleuthing than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.119.102 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you were to post whatever information you have here, we might be able to help. Have you tried a Google search along the lines of "games shop London <owner's name>"? Tevildo (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tried, it doesn't work. And I'm a little loth to post it on here, because that could be construed as just looking to get my legwork done for me :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.119.102 (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would be possible to post a letter addressed to "X's Games Shop, London" asking for contact details - the Post Office _sometimes_ manages to get letters through based on such limited information. However, it would be much easier if you were to post the details - if not here, then on a UK gaming forum, perhaps? - and see if anyone recognizes them. Tevildo (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with using this desk to do your "legwork" - it's when it a simple enquiry that could be found using the search box in google and wikipedia in seconds that annoys the ref deskers! Complicated enquiries are good fun! Gazhiley (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and post all the info you have - this is the sort of question we're happy to have a go at :) Exxolon (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Limitations on the Height of Buildings

What are the various limitations on the potential height of a habitable structure? I imagine that there are a lot of factors (technological, economic, legal, etc.)—I'm wondering how they all fit together. For example, regardless of financial concerns, what's the maximum height we can achieve? Which factor would prevent us from building further?

Alfonse Stompanato (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you build it so high the top floors are in the death zone, that would be a problem (although you could overcome it by making it air tight and fitting an airlock). I guess the biggest problem is the weight on the bottom level - you need to build the bottom layers out of something with very high compressive strength and there will be limits to how strong a material you can get. To an extent, you can overcome that by building a pyramid (so the weight is spread over a greater area), but then you are limited by how much land you have available to build on. If you get above 100km then you are in space and you have a Space tower. --Tango (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The trick is to start from Clarke orbit and work down. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a big difference between tensile and compressive structures. Tensile ones do, indeed, seem the more plausible for connecting the ground and space. --Tango (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Burj Khalifa (see article) formerly known as Burj Dubai, is a skyscraper in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and the tallest man-made structure ever built, at 828 m (2,717 ft). Wind resistance is a major limiting factor to the height of buildings. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand this new building has shattered Taipei 101 by over 1000 feet. From Irving Wallace's Book of Lists, there is an article saying that Frank Lloyd Wright once considered a mile high ( 5280 feet ) building, which would have been nearly twice as high as this new one. Some foresaw problems with firefighting, as can be seen in 20th Century Fox and Warner Brothers disaster ( in movie terms, as well as by subject ), The Towering Inferno. It is said the Sears Tower sways a number of feet at the top, due to high winds. That is interesting about building up to space. If one got to where one is weightless, would that make the upper floors weightless, and take the strain off some of the lower ones ? I suspect not, but that is intriguing. The Russian. C.B.Lilly 12:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Well, not really. You don't become weightless in space because of your height above the ground - it's because of your orbital speed. If you build a tower 22,000 miles high - then you'd be weightless in the penthouse suite - but not in any of the other 10 million floors on the way up there...and then - only if you built your tower at the equator. SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely the main concern is legality. No way is anyone going to grant planning permission for buildings miles high. They'll find a way to stop that. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they? It's fantastic publicity for wherever you build it. Why do you think buildings like Burj Khalifa are allowed to be built (in fact, I think that was even built by a state owned investment company)? --Tango (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That depends on the country. But I'm sure there are plenty of 3rd world countries that would shrug their shoulders, take your bribes and offers of masses of national prestige and local employment and let you build whatever you want. SteveBaker (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the article Demolition the tallest steel framed building deliberately imploded was only 439 feet (134m). A couple of towers 1362/1368 feet upsettingly (but efficiently) were collapsed one day. Has anyone given thought about how to do it when Burj Khalifa needs to be demolished? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The big limitation is logistics: as the tower gets higher, the percentage of the building devoted to moving things (air, water, people) in and out increases, to the point where adding further height doesn't increase the amount of usable space. --Carnildo (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

When can One buy Internationalized domain name

When do Internationalized domain names go on sale? Acceptable (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As the article states, they have been on sale for some time. If you mean internationalised top level domains, ICANN are currently processing uncontroversial requests, as detailed here. Among other requirements, there is a $26,000 fee. Warofdreams talk 05:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)