Miscellaneous desk
< May 18	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 20 >

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.

May 19

== Speak Asia -A boon or a bane? NAVEEN SHARMA Recently published news of speak asia has put forward dilemma about its buisness and how it is spreading tremendously in Asian countries, specially in India. Why it has been launched and what are its objectives? How come they manage such high customers working under it? They offer prizes for good marketing, from where they manage huge money? How it can benifit or hamper the financial conditions of a country? More important, who and how has been this agency put foreward? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priteshv1991 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian authorities have started probing the Ponzi investment scheme of Singapore-based company Speak Asia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question - all you can eat

I'm not a fan of gorging myself, but I've been pondering with my friends - if one wanted to eat as much as possible in such restaurant, how should they "prepare"? One of my friends claims that eating very little or nothing at all for a few days is the best way, while the other says that one should instead a only a bit less than normally, and consume a lot of fibrous food. I'm asking this purely out of curiosity and I most certainly won't go and commit suicide-by-food: what is the best way to prepare oneself for consuming as much food as possible during one restaurant stay? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about Competitive eating. It does not contradict the assertion that such efforts are silly. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look at it! 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unlike competitive eating most restaurants won't force you to eat in under a time limit... though at a certain point they'd certainly give you the old heave ho (if you weren't already taking care of that yourself in the facilities). HominidMachinae (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You go now. You've been here FOUR HOURS! --Jayron32 02:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I saw that routine as a kid and distinctly remember Louie Anderson being the comedian. Dismas|^(talk) 17:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just recently I've been in Amsterdam, and we've eaten at a Chinese restaurant which said 'all you can eat in one hour', and my friend, who had been to Asia had said that it's actually not uncommon to have places (I think she mentioned China) that will offer you an 'all you can eat' programme but charged by the hour. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, does this sound like a man who has had all he can eat? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of this one, if it is a pun, actually escapes me, Adam. If you mean there wasn't enough time to eat all you could, I'll tell you this - after an hour I was full to the brim, and the food wasn't that great either - but still a nice deal at EUR 8,50 an hour, drinks not included. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a sad commentary on modern values, that one would gorge oneself on mediocre food just because it came cheaply. What stops you from buying canned dog food and eating it yourself? That's a good deal, too, if money is your bottom line. I imagine it's not great, culinarily speaking, but it won't kill you. Pensioners do it all the time. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Adam refers to an early episode of The Simpsons (season 4, episode 8: "New Kid on the Block") in which Homer sues an all-you-can-eat restaurant. The quote is from lawyer Lionel Hutz, who asks the rhetorical question "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do these sound like the actions of a man whose had ALL he could eat?" [1] TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

According to the DVD, Conan O'Brien actually came up with that subplot when the guest star stipulated for the original "B story" in the script, Don Rickles, refused to participate. I went to an all-you-can-eat Japanese restaurant where there was a time limit (2 hours I think) and they also charged you $1 for every piece you ordered that you didn't eat. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, I get it, all of it. Well, it wasn't the mediocre food that attracted us, for me it was much more the experience of not ever having been to a place which would charge by the hour. I'm actually very open to trying new food - but it has to be food (in my definition, food is not what is available for purchase at the golden arches or similar). I often use recommendations from waiters or just pick something I don't understand the name of, when I'm abroad, just for the experience. The food wasn't bad, wasn't mediocre - but to put this into perspective, I've travelled to southern France and Corsica a while before I was in Amsterdam, so in comparison, you know ;) --Ouro (blah blah) 06:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miltary Rank on Retirment in the Philippines

Is it correct that an officer upon normal retirement does so one rank up. Eg a Captain on reitrement ecomes a retired Major and a Serving Major on retirement becomes a Retired Lt Colonel. Is it also correct for such an officer to use his Retired Rank as a title. EG Major .... Sioho? 121.54.54.53 (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the British Army, officers over the rank of Captain are entitled to use their rank as a title (instead of "Mr") in retirement. I strongly suspect that the Phillipines follows US custom in this respect; perhaps somebody else knows or can find out? Alansplodge (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding your credit card number on the internet

Hi there Reference Deskers.

So I was Googling my grandfather's name and one of the results returned was this Iranian website and this one. Searches for either website haven't turned up anything. I don't want to click on the site itself as I'm at the office and we run crappy IE and I'm afraid of infecting my employer's network.

There's a long number on the site which could be his credit card number, and his address. I'm pretty worried. I know his daughter (my aunt) has access to said card, and could be accused of being a little irresponsible with it. Another difficult bit is the part where I have to explin to my 70-year-old grandfather what has happened and how to make himself safe (which I have no idea about).

Ref deskers! I know you have some kind of magic and know how to find these things out! What are there websites? What do they do? Is it a worry? How do I correct it? And how do I instruct an elderly gent to do this?

Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.180.83 (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them seem to be forums. But they're in what is probably Farsi, ~~which Google Translate can't do~~ — it can do it under "Persian", apparently, but it doesn't seem to be able to make sense of the romanized script. You might ask on the Language desk if someone can read them. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to post your questions on the Persian Reference Desk at http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/ویکی%E2%80%8Cپدیا:میز_مرجع.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[I am restoring my original indentation, which was improperly changed. Please see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

You might find this Google support page of interest. (Don't search for your complete credit card number on Google.)--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you write down the number, and take (or phone) it to your grandfather to check against the actual credit card number. If it matches, he needs to contact his credit card company immediately and have that card cancelled and a new card issued. Note that it doesn't actually matter what that web site is all about. If, for any reason, they have posted his credit card number, then it has been compromised and must be cancelled. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree you should look in to it, I would note the date on the forum post is 2004. The expiry date for the alleged credit cards there are 2004-2006 with possibly one that is 2007. This would suggest at a minimum the CVV has changed and there would also be a new expiry date (although if your bank is similar to mine it would be fairly predictable) presuming your grandfather has kept renewing that card. More importantly the info has been out there for over 7 years. In other words, there's probably no need to call your grandfather in the middle of the night in a panic or whatever. Also if you want to determine if that's really your grandfather's credit card number and it doesn't match any current cards, you'd need to go back to cards he had 7 years ago. If your grandfather does still have a card that matches, even with a new CVV and expiry date, you'd want to change it.

In terms of instructing your grandfather, without understanding the Farsi, it looks to me like the info was likely stolen from insecure stores or harvested from stores someone set-up for the purpose. In either event, you'd want to advise your father to be careful what online stores they shop at. While using the credit card will generally provide some recourse in disputes it also means they could be harvested. Unless you're resonably sure you trust the store themselves, see whether they use a payment gateway that is likely trustworthy and if not see if they accept something like PayPal or just don't use them.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire threads seem to be only about other people's personal order information. Is this "shabgard.org" some publicly accessible forum for identity and credit information thieves? JIP | Talk 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" KABAA".

To the Originator,

Please refer to the word " Kabaa " under which you have given the details of the Kabaa. Out of those details I would like to point out about a line in which you say " some belive that the space left over (Hatim)was the place where Ismail and Hajra burried." I would like to from where this information has been collected and the source from which this perticular information gathered. Please let me know and please respond to my email [email address removed]. If you feel that the line has nothing to do and it has been vague reported then I request you to kindly delete the line. The line appears in to places. Please remove them from the text of the "Kabaa". Because it is unnessarily creating doubts and lots misconceptions among the beleivers. Thanks and looking forward to have positive response from you. Best regards, Muhammad Shakir Hussain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.93.120 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information in Kabaa you query is referenced to "Wensinck, A. J; Ka`ba. Encyclopaedia of Islam IV p. 317". That seems to be an eminently good source for such information, and so wikipedia is more than unlikely to remove it, whether or not it causes doubt and misconceptions on the part of believers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the questioner's email address as per note at the top of this page: "Do not provide your contact information. E-mail or home addresses, or telephone numbers, will be removed. You must return to this page to get your answer." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel & Palestine

"The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

What did Obama mean by this? How can a new Palestinian state be contiguous without disrupting the contiguity of Israel. Isn't that like saying NY and California will be joined at the same time as Wisconsin and Texas? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Perhaps he meant that Palestine needs to be "politically contiguous" (meaning one government for both the Gaza Strip and West Bank) versus "geographically contiguous" ?

Or, sticking with "geographically contiguous", perhaps there could be a corridor from one to the other, with bridges or tunnels going across, so neither is blocked. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contiguous" means "bordering".[2] Aren't they already bordering each other? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Palestinian territories (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) don't border each other. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They could do, and without splitting Israel in two, if Israel were to cede them a strip of land along the whole Israel-Egypt border, another along the Israel-Jordan border, and the short Gulf of Aqaba coastline. I have no idea whether that was what Obama was suggesting though. --Antiquary (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama needs to stop taking geography lessons from Sarah Palin. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like what Obama actually told Israel in the talk was to go back to their 1967 borders. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Israel will be glad to make such concessions once the Palestinian terrorists decide to stop killing Israelis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing he means the Palestinian part of the West Bank should be one big blob rather than several blobs as has been proposed before. I don't think he means the West Bank and Gaza Strip should be in the same blob. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think. Connecting the two would be about as practical as trying to connect East and West Pakistan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is a stark difference. Constructing a sealed-off highway between WB and Gaza wouldn't be the 8th Wonder of the World. The distance between the two wings of Pakistan was way bigger. --Soman (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing he means give up the land first. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Obama is refering more to political continuity than geographic. Since the events of 2006-2007 Hamas has effective control over the Gaza Strip while the West Bank is under the de-facto contol of Fatah, see Fatah–Hamas_conflict#West_Bank:_Fatah_wins_and_establishes_a_separate_government. While many people speak of the Two-state solution as being the only viable, long-term plan for stability in the region, the current political status is of three independent states; with Palestine divided into the Fatah-controlled West Bank and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. Such an arrangement is unsustainable, and the vast majority of people seem to agree that there needs to be a reuinification of the Palestinian government into a single entity before further progress can be made towards peace. It is likely a symptom of the poor choice of the word contiguous to describe the desired effect, which is clearly a single unified government for all existing Palestinian land, and NOT some territorial shuffling to give Palestine a contiguous territory. --Jayron32 05:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama continued with a reference (from memory) to with agreed exchanges of territory. That describes a process that in principle could lead to any conceivable territorial fragmentation, and sounds like an encouragement to the parties to apply the Land for peace principle. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I still don't think he's refering to ceding, say, pre-1967 Israeli land to create a geographic connection between Gaza and the West Bank; it would be literally impossible to do so without either dividing Israeli territory into two chunks itself, OR cutting off Israeli access to its Red Sea port at Eilat. Such a concept is a complete non-starter; I can't imagine a single person would seriously consider it as a means to solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The "exchanges of territory" usually refers to the long-standing request by Palestinians for Israel to end the Israeli settlement within the West Bank area. The perception by Palestinians is that such Israeli settlement are a bold attempt to make the area "Israeli" by pushing the Palestinians out demographically; i.e. to break the control of the Palestinian people over the territory by making it a majority Israeli land simply by settling in the land. "Land for peace" is a sometimes derisive term used by the Israeli position that such lands are intergrally part of Israel proper, as much as Tel Aviv would be. It is a complex problem, and really amounts to deciding what parts of the area are really Israeli, and what parts are Palestinian, and how the actions of Israel, vis-a-vis settlement of the "occupied territories", affect the peace process. --Jayron32 14:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though apparently the name Palestine comes from the Hebrew word for 'to divide'. Perhaps that is more than just a coincidence. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not from "Phillistines" ? StuRat (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, Stu. That's an island group in the South China Sea. Don't they teach geography in your country? :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Iran?

Iran is not listed on Wikipedia's 'List of Arab countries by population'. Is there a reason for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.74.168 (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because they are Persians, not Arabs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is not an Arab country. It has Arabs in it (around 2 million according to Iranian Arab), but by and large they are Persians in both language and ethnicity. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in reading Arab_people#Identity. Being "Arab" is a complex issue, since there are multiple definitions of what it means to be an Arab. Based on the three definitions provided at that page, however (either a) a resident of, or decendent of a resident of, the Arabian Peninsula or Syrian Desert b) a speaker of a dialect of the Arabic language c) a resident of a nation who belongs to the Arab League.) Most Iranians fit none of these categories, excepting the 2 million or so Iranian Arabs noted above. Though a form of Arabic serves as the liturgical language of Islam, non-Arabic Muslims outnumber Arabic Muslims by a sizable amount. Doing a quick check at List of Muslim-majority countries shows that the largest "Arabic" nation, Egypt, is 5th on the list of such counties, and is dwarfed in population by non-Arabic muslim nations like Indonesia and Pakistan. Among the top 4 Muslim nations (all outside of the Arabic world), multiplying their populations by their %Muslims and adding them up gives a figure of 585 million non-Arabic muslims; which is more than the total Arabic population of the world, even including Arabs in non-Arabic countries. --Jayron32 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identify a shape

File:General outline of Peru.png

What is this the shape of, please? I believe it's a location (region), but am not certain. It's rotated a bit clockwise (i.e., needs to be rotated a bit counterclockwise to be correct), perhaps ten degrees or so. (The weird cusps all along it are artifacts of my deleting the interior using a circular-shaped eraser. But the shape is essentially correct.)—msh210℠ 21:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An ameoba ? StuRat (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Peru. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right. It's a Peru-shaped amoeba. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Out of curiosity, did you recognize it or figure it out, and, if the latter, then how'd you do it?—msh210℠ 22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can use TinEye for reverse image searches if you ever wonder where pictures come from. Livewireo (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TinEye searches for the exact image (even if it's not the exact image file), not similar ones. In this case, as I made this file from a digital photograph taken today, there won't have been another copy of it online, so TinEye wouldn't have helped. (That said, I nonetheless did check TinEye for this version of the picture — though, admittedly, not for the photograph — and, unsurprisingly, it came up with nothing.)—msh210℠ 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say you photographed the image. Where did you see it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While hovering over Peru, obviously. Probably looking for Nazca lines. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Dismas' question, below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As part of a certification mark (which was this shape with a lowercase k in it).—msh210℠ 06:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I'm confused. Did you, the OP, know that it was Peru already? Then what was the point of asking us? Dismas|^(talk) 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe out to Peru-ve a point. Anyway, the top half looks like Bart Simpson to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the OP's 3 posts suggesting that he/she already knew the answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.60 (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was mostly the part where they said it was modeled after a digital image that was "taken today". They seem to have some knowledge about the original file (e.g. where it came from, etc). Dismas|^(talk) 07:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reading was that the OP has photographed something with the shape on/in it (a logo, maybe). No big deal, however. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.8 (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right: I had no idea it was Peru.—msh210℠ 06:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recognized it because...I don't know, I just know what Peru looks like. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all right. Thanks again.—msh210℠ 06:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]