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.
A lot of places in Minnesota that were later targets of Scandinavian immigration were first founded by native-born Americans of British descent or by German immigrants during the mid-19th century. During the same period, Chile was also a magnet for German immigration. This is speculation that would need to be confirmed by research, perhaps at the Sherburne County History Center, but the name might have come from German immigrants who had heard of their countrymen's successes in Chile's capital and hoped to achieve something similar in North America. Marco polo (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many place names in Minnesota are mangled versions of indigenous names - don't be surprised if Santiago isn't simply a Norwegian accent applied to a Lakota/Dakota/Sioux word. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George R. StewartA Concise Dictionary of American Place-Names says only: "probably for the city in Spain or one of the others [in the US] so named, since this is outside the direct Spanish influence and was founded too early (1856) to be named for the battle of 1898, for which a railroad station in the same state was named." —Tamfang (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not one who socializes with coworkers at drinking establishments after work. What is the "etiquette" for a social situation like that? Are there "unwritten rules" that people are generally expected to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.77.190 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go by all means and make sure your boss sees you there, but also make sure that he/she knows beforehand that you have a maiden aunt who is on her death bed and who dotes on you. That way, you will avoid the myriad problems that ALWAYS attend office parties. 92.30.75.4 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well by the sounds of it you won't be getting drunk, but no there aren't relly. Just talk normally as if you were talking to your coworkers elsewhere. You might get nervous and somehow conclude that the barman (or others in the bar) think you're an idiot but who cares what they think, you're paying the barman, and they almost certainly don't think that anyway. Sometimes more introverted people draw conclusions like that for very little reason. A quick goole search brings up this site that looks quite good.--92.251.201.60 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another tip ... don't discuss work or work-related topics. This is time out of the office, so treat it as such. If someone else brings up work stuff, consider it off-the-record, for the most part.
Out of curiosity, why wouldn't you socialize with them after hours? It's actually a good thing to see that your co-workers have lives, too. These aren't machines you work with every day; they're people, just like you. You don't have to drink at all, but if you do, by all means do so sensibly. Remember the old adage "loose lips sink ships"? It could be paraphrased "alcohol-loosened lips can sink careers." --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard lots of people say things like "people who fold their arms are afraid of social interaction" and "people who call things gay are insecure about their own sexuality" and "girls play with their hair around people they fancy" and even "males think about sex every 7 seconds". Where do people get these weird ideas? I fold my arms a lot and I'm certainly not afraid of social interaction, and using gay as a synonym for stupid had been almost universal among my peers since I was in primary school (Yes even used by gay people). So have I got some terrific problems that I've never noticed and haven't so far impacted my life, or where did this crap come from?--92.251.201.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
This is all my opinion, no real research that would be up to Wikipedia's standard went behind this, but I am very timid around people, and I fold my arms a LOT, to the point that any close friends I may have with me will remind me to relax and look friendly. Maybe it's not just me. And no, not everyone who uses the word "gay" as a synonym for stupid (I really wish you'd stop that, though) is a closet homo, not even all actual homophobes are gay. However, if you keep up with political scandals, you'd notice that the most ardent homophobes are secretly gay themselves. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No the construction "politically homophobic" is unjustified. In politics Roy Ashburn was against gay rights. One may see that as cynical politics but to apply a psychological diagnosis homophobia that means fear of homosexuality makes no sense. Roy Ashburn visited a gay club so User 24.189.90.68 calls him an "ardent" homophobe which makes as little sense as an "ardent" claustrophobe. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know the literal meaning of homophobia is a fear of homosexuals, but generally that term is used against people who hate gays, and probably aren't "fearful" enough to go up to an openly gay person's face and call them names or do worse. And by "ardent", I also meant he was so outwardly homophobic, that he'd be willing to vote against gay rights to make good with the people he needed approval from, even if it meant putting himself down by doing so. The same way some preachers vilify homosexuality as an abominable sin, and then they're having same-sex affairs on the side. Rather than be indifferent, they'd prefer to be as outwardly homophobic as possible to deflect any suspicion that they might be gay themselves (although it's a tactic that is now failing miserably). So don't be surprised if Fred Phelps comes out (inadvertently or not) of the closet someday. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Body language experts say that folded arms shows a defensive posture with overtones of disagreement. I suppose that someone who habitually folds their arms when not disagreeing with people is therefore being defensive all the time - which could indicate a fear of social interaction. Personally, for me it usually means that the A/C is turned several degrees too low and I wore a short-sleeved T-shirt to work today...but then I'm a complete klutz when it comes to transmitting or receiving thoughts in the form of body language! SteveBaker (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a semi-pseudo-semi-science around reading body language for fun and profit. you'll see a lot of books on it, usually aimed at people who sell things, people trying to scoot up the corporate ladder, and people trying to score date more successfully. It has a real basis in clinical psychology (posture and physical behaviors are diagnostic tools used by therapists sometimes). outside of therapy, though, it's 95% placebo: if you believe you can 'read' someone's body language, you feel you have knowledge, which makes you feel more self-confident and in control, which makes it more likely that you are going to succeed at whatever it is you're doing. you get the same effect by using Affirmations ("I'm going to get that promotion"). --Ludwigs204:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think all those ideas, aside from the last one, are perfectly sound, and certainly not 'weird' by any stretch. Anyway you asked where people get these ideas. Has it occurred to you it might simply be recognizing the truth? Hence there is no source per se, just a recognition of human nature. I mean, sure you fold your arms and sure you have no qualms about being around people, but when you fold your arms methinks there is someone or something around you that you are not entirely keen on. Vranak (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Ludwig's affirmation won't work is that it's not written in the present tense, as if the goal has already been achieved ("I have been promoted to <name your job> and I am enjoying it immensely"). Affirmations work in the same way as visualising a goal, because they trick the mind into seeing the goal already achieved. But if you tell yourself over and over that the job will happen in the future, that's when it'll happen, and the future never comes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I have to stand or sit still, I fold my arms. It's just more comfortable. I am heterosexual and I often use the word gay to mean stupid, and I'm not homophobic either. And while I might think about sex every 7 seconds some of the time (:D), I certainly don't do it all the time. I have discovered to my own loss that the third satement certainly isn't true.--92.251.234.191 (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. Whenever I meet new people, I curl up into a fetal position in the corner, and people are forever trying to read something into it. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because homosexuals co-opted the term "gay" doesn't mean they own it. It used to mean something much broader - light, airy, effeminate, flamboyant, etc. Calling something "gay" doesn't necessarily mean it's "homosexual" - it could mean it's like the original version of "gay" - showy, perhaps; and perhaps lacking in substance. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term "gay" has had sexual connotations for centuries. Then and now it has other meanings, but even in the 1600s you couldn't describe someone as "gay" without someone in the back row snickering. In fact, it's connotation is probably cleaner now than then. APL (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "gay" had the predominate homosexual meaning until the mid-1960s. Otherwise we wouldn't have all the Christmas songs and the Flintstone's theme using it. StuRat (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but in certain contexts you could use it to describe an unseemly obsession with pleasures of the flesh. That old-fashioned use of the word goes back centuries. I'm no linguist, and I'll admit that judging from TV and movies from the period this usage seems to have been obscure in, say, the forties and fifties, but I assume that it couldn't have died out completely because, like you say, a close variant of it came back in a big way in the 1960s. APL (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's why even for the first half of this century it was perfectly acceptable to say one's camping trip was a gay old time. And DuncanHill you don't have a clue who you're talking to so you can't make claims like that. You're being rather hypocritical.--92.251.225.200 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So tell me who you are - instead of being the sort of coward who uses offensive language then pretends that others can't complain "because they don't know who they are". DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol APL I'm still stuck in the 20th century. And DuncanHill there is not one human being alive that does not say stuff like "why won't this damn printer work" and "crap". Many people I know and I often say things like "that film is so gay" when we mean bad. How is this any more offensive than saying "bad"? If you're the kind of person who's grip on reality is so tenous that you are mortally offended by a person's choice of phrase yet fail to be offended by the unimaginable amount of injustice, oppression and suffering that has permeated this world throughout history; someone who feels he can judge the worthiness of an entire group of people's lives based on two sentences written by one of the group, then you need urgent help. I will continue to use "gay" and other words as synonyms for bad as I've grown up using them.--92.251.136.245 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evolutionary psychology has a lot to answer for. And phrenology and associated ideas. The idea that you might be able to magically divine somebody's character (and perhaps predict their future) by looking at them is enormously tempting. Fiction from a hundred years ago was full of sorting people into types based on the shape of their jaw or the colour of their eyes or something; the second world war and popular disapproval of racism cured us of this, I think, but the appeal of divination lingers. 213.122.27.130 (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These sort of body language things can be useful because they are broadly true but have to be taken along with other signals.In isolation they mean nothing.The thing is,we often react unconsciously to them without knowing it.For example,if someone used the word "gay" to mean "stupid" I would condemn them as an ignorant bigot ...hotclaws18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone here knows a webcomic strip that had one character labeled "indie gamer" or something similar, he walked into the scene after being introduced and just said "The Dreamcast was highly underrated!" or something like that? It looked like Penny Arcade or Sinfest, but I don't think those were it. Thanks. --YukiMuonMadobeNite (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bit of a tough one... At least I think so... I saw a flag today, here in Vermont, that was hanging off someone's porch. It had four vertical stripes that made up the "background" of the flag. One color covered the left third, two colors were evenly divided between the middle third (making a line down the center of the flag), and the fourth color was on the right third. In the "foreground" of the flag was a ring of different colors. As the ring passed through one of the other color blocks, the ring itself changed to another color. I only had a quick glance but none or very few of the colors seemed to be the same as any of the other colors on the flag. Any ideas what the flag represented? Or do you think this was just a flag that someone found "pretty" and they hung it up? Dismas|(talk)03:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are several sites on the web that show the flags of all countries in the world - and none of them appear to have four vertical stripes. So we can narrow it down to "a pretty flag" or some kind of city, commercial company or club flag. You didn't mention the colors of the stripes - I guess that might help. SteveBaker (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have had two thefts from my front garden in the last few months. Can anyone suggest a suitible exterior CCTV please? I would like it to be discrete, almost invisible, without big ugly cameras. I only want it to record still images that I can retrieve for the last twenty four hours or more, not real-time monitoring. Most importantly, I want it to run all by itself without requiring me to keep a computer running. It should run silently without needing any attention from me, except when I want to review and retrieve images. Thanks 84.13.201.209 (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save a lot of money by mounting a deliberately visible dummy camera. Here are suppliers one of whom offers a peculiar slogan "They are real dummies, don't be a dummy and buy one, crooks know the difference". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a real, exterior, standalone CCTV system would be more expensive than whatever is stolen from your garden. You could lower the cost by just using a remote web cam attached to your computer, but you vetoed that idea. A simple motion sensitive light might well frighten off the thieves, and is good for personal safety, as well. Also, is there a way to secure the items they steal ? Tools can be locked in a shed or garage, for instance, and garden gnomes can be put inside, looking out a window. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, they charge more for a fake camera than a real one. But, of course, a real one also needs wiring, a monitor, and a recording device to go along with it. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more difficult thing is not the cameras or the wiring, but having something that will save 24 hrs plus of still images. Something that does not make any noise and hence does not have a cooling fan, or use up much electricity. 89.243.43.75 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if it is "possible" to learn Dvorak without forgetting Qwerty? I'd like to give Dvorak a try, but I'm worried that I'll be unable to type in Qwerty any more (I currently type at ~120wpm at Qwerty). --Belchman (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(OR) I've learned to type both, but nowhere near 120 wpm on either. It usually takes about 20 minutes or so when I switch over for the memory to come back completely. Maybe if you switched more often, you could bring that time down. Buddy431 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About 50 wpm. I certainly prefer Dvorak (you aren't reaching down to the bottom row so much), but I don't know that I type any faster on it. Buddy431 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's much harder to keep your qwerty typing when you learn dvorak, but for many people not impossible. On the other hand I expect your qwerty speed to also carry to your dvorak typing - after 3 months or so of practice. Presumably to keep your qwerty speed up, practice it as much as you practice dvorak. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
