Miscellaneous desk
< April 9	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 11 >

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.

April 10

Slurp Gun

Section 28.91 of California Ocean Sports Fishing Regulations states "Slurp guns may be used to take finfish except..." What is a Slurp Gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garytollefson (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Slurp guns are routinely used as a hand held device for collecting small fish and invertebrates while SCUBA diving. Slurp guns are essentially giant syringes that capture organisms by suction generated by a plunger in a barrel".[1] Every multi-millionaire movie director/deep-sea explorer has one.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Curious why there is no share buttons or options to other sites or personal places, to share a particular page or topic from Wiki? Thank You, Sandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiquebabe (talk • contribs) 08:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I want someone to read a wikipedia item, I copy-and-paste the URL of that item into an e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed (see here) but there wasn't a strong consensus for or against. If you want to share on Twitter, Facebook, etc, it's easy enough to copy the link. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I've been doing and I guess I am thinking it is getting old and want the new technology to take over and I can share with the click of a button!! I'm lazy I tell ya!

Thank You, Sandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiquebabe (talk • contribs) 23:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just get some kind of browser plugin that lets you share any page with a click of a button? – b_jonas 10:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIG BEN

How many hands does Big Ben have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.118.113 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more important question is "can we see both of Big Ben's hands right now?" Ian.thomson (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer is 2. Or 8 if you count the 4 faces separately. Look at the pictures in Big Ben. Staecker (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct answer is "none". Despite popular misunderstanding, Big Ben is the name of a bell, not a clocktower. See Big Ben. --Dweller (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though the question is really just a smartass trick, as Big Ben can refer in popular usage to either the bell or to the entire structure. (Your new word of the day is synecdoche.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller's answer is what I was shooting for: Big Ben has no hands, it is a bell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.118.113 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting questions that you already know the answer to is trolling and liable to get you banned from Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Reference Desk isn't a quiz show. Please don't play stump-the-Desk on our volunteer's time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Two" is the correct answer for this Big Ben. Deor (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has asked a trick question that's on the order of "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people get all hung up on Big Ben and what it "really" is. There are zillions (not an exaggeration) of cases where a name has been applied to some entity, then extended to include a larger entity or other entities. Big Ben may have been originally just the bell. It is no longer just the bell and hasn't been for a very long time. Those who frame questions or engage in discussions on the basis that the original restricted appellation still applies and will always apply are terribly stuck and probably need counselling or psychotherapeutic treatment. Get over it, get a life, and move on. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

obligatory xkcd reference — Lomn 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, the answer to my question is no one. General and Mrs. Grant are entombed, not buried, in Grant's tomb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One definition [3] for buried is "to inter with funeral ceremonies" according to Webster. That particular definition would include entombing. Anonymous.translator (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In a colloquial sense, maybe, but not really.[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though oddly the maxim "when in a hole..." comes to mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Burial, burial is conventionally underground. And the word "inter" in this sense means... are you ready?... to put in the earth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"to deposit (a dead body) in the earth or in a tomb" actually [5], at least according to Webster. Anonymous.translator (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...as in, "to put you inter the ground". :-) StuRat (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Freakin' A, Bub. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should give the rabbit a dispensation for his hole digging, it being firmly in his nature. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that extend to rabbiting on? :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Where I come from, "bury" means "below ground". Maybe it's different in Australia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One of those tricky words which can bear different meanings according to context and the plasticity of the reader's mind. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This writer from the New York Times agrees with my take on it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're upside-down down here Down Under, and when we bury people, they fall out of their graves and float around the sky and become hazards to low-flying aircraft. It makes for a challenging lifestyle, but we're made tough and we can handle it. It's also quite scenic in a magrittesque kind of way. (Did someone say something about rabbiting-on ...) :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

You answered my next question. Being upside down, it's a wonder y'all can hang on. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the pedants amongst you (on the WP RefDesk? Surely not!), the correct name for the "Big Ben" clock is the Great Clock of Westminster. Alansplodge (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TouchMaster Game

> I have bought the TouchMaster game which I have enjoyed very much. However, > I have now reached a position where I cannot beat my scores. Is there any > way of erasing the scores on the card? > > I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.146.222 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page suggests that the manufacturer has said that it is not possible to reset the high scores. Please note that the page makes the suggestion (repeated on other forum posts) that you could try taking the game out at a certain point whilst data is being written. I can't stress how much I do not recommend doing this. It runs the risk of irreparably damaging the game if you ask me. Try it very much at your own risk. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recommend that you try sticking the game in a strong magnetic field (such as the permanent magnet in a sub-woofer) to erase the data. But if you ignore my warning and do it anyway, let me know how it goes. 120.153.209.17 (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two John Day Rivers in Oregon

For some years I have noted that Oregon actually has two rivers with the same name, John Day River, both of which flow into the Columbia River. The most well known is the larger John Day River that flows into the Columbia at about milepost 114 on Interstate Hwy #84. The smaller John Day River flows into the Columbia near Astoria. I would very much like to know the history of how this may have come to be, probably near the time of the Lewis & Clark expedition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Phardt (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has seperate articles on both of them: John Day River, which is the larger of the two, and John Day River (northwestern Oregon), which is the smaller. The article on the larger river has more details, including how it was named. As an aside, this is hardly a unique example of multiple places in one state having identical names. An extreme example is New Jersey, which has five incorporated townships all named Washington Township, New Jersey. --Jayron32 20:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Geographic Names tells the story of John Day's 1811-1812 misfortune and adventure in the vicinity of the larger John Day River, but is silent about how the smaller river came to be named for him, other than noting it is named for the same John Day. Still, the smaller river is very near Astoria, which was the center of regional fur trading operations back then. John Day worked out of Astoria, so it isn't surprising to find a river named for him there. It does seem unusual that his first and last names are used for both rivers. I can't offhand think of another river named for an early Oregon Country fur trader that includes a first name. Perhaps the usage for one river influenced its use for the other. Oregon Geographical Names says the larger river was sometimes called just the Day River in early times; John Work called it Day River, for example. Then again, Peter Skene Ogden called it John Day River. I might speculate that "John" was used because "Day" is not obviously a last name, but then there are places like Work Channel, named for John Work, which I once assumed to be somehow associated with "working". In short, I don't know why John Day wound up honored with his full name like that. Nor how the smaller river became named for him, except that he worked nearby. Pfly (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling Mails

Is there any way to compile all mails to (or from) a specific person in gmail and prepare it for printing or save it as a a doc/pdf file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.5.129 (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This forum thread suggests not. --Viennese Waltz 08:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is possible to download the emails in your Gmail account using IMAP and a desktop email client, such as Microsoft Outlook or Mozilla Thunderbird. Google provide a guide to how to do this. Once you have the messages on your PC the options for saving and printing are much greater. You can set up a filter (as an example, here's how to do it in Thunderbird) to show you all the mails from a particular sender, then print them out (here's a quick guide to doing it, again for Thunderbird). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20% racist?

hi there,

I would like to know that I like Bangladeshi people (because I am a Bangladeshi), Arabs, Somalis, African, Latinos, Europeans, Whites, Asians, Afghanis, Iranians, Turkish people and Malaysian and Indonesian but I hate Indian and Pakistani people. Would that make me a full multicultural person or half-multicultural and half-racist? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.51 (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

100% racist, IMHO. That description applies to anyone who generalises about ALL people from a particular place. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the reason for your hatred is wars fought with those nations. If so, some things to think about are:

1) Those wars were long ago, and many of the people who fought in them are dead by now (or those killed would have died by now anyway).

2) Continuing to hate them doesn't hurt them, it only hurts you. It's time to forgive. StuRat (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3) The population in general didn't start (or manage) the wars: the states did. Even in a perfect democracy there are minorities. —Tamfang (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are different views of racism. See Racism for a start. Many would probably say it depends what you think about Indian and Pakistani people apart from hating them. For example how they should be treated or whether you consider them inferior in abilities, morality or other ways. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with HiLo48. I've always understood someone who was racist as someone who believed that their race was genetically, culturally, or inherently superior to another race. What you're describing is bigotry.--WaltCip (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is a statement. The question is not whether a person is "20% racist" as that would make little sense as a question unless we understood the phrase "20% racist" in a figurative sense. The question is also unclear in what is meant by "multicultural", and by extension, "half-multicultural". Ditto for "half-racist". What we do know is that the statement "...I hate Indian and Pakistani people" is part of the supposed "question". This is hardly a question worth entertaining at the Reference desk. It should be removed. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ WaltCip: I think racism and bigotry are overlapping but different concepts. Maybe we could even say that racism is a sub-set of bigotry, because I can't think of an example of racism that isn't at its core also an example of bigotry. Bigotry can include attitudes that have nothing to do with race (e.g. negative attitudes to people of a certain religion, social class, sex, sexual preference, penis size, hair colour, age ...; or, indeed, inappropriately favourable attitudes to such groups). The OP's stated attitude to Indians and Pakistanis is certainly an example of bigotry, but it's also most definitely a racist attitude, because whether or not someone is hated by the OP is determined not by any merit-based factors but purely by their race. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian" and "Pakistani" aren't races, they're nationalities. If we go by race theories, Bangladeshis would fit in with a lot of Indians and some Pakistanis. 109.97.142.149 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Race theories are scientifically bunk in any case. True nationalists always manage to come up with their own bunk race theories to explain why they don't have to treat some group of people as equally human. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful thinking don't make it so, alas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously contesting that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there are no discrete races? Please at least get up to speed on the subject so we can have a conversation about it that isn't just you throwing back stuff you picked up from television. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You and I might agree on the theoretical facts of the matter. But the fact of racism being so rampant in the world tells you how little the average citizen really cares about "overwhelming scientific consensus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

use of the 'small' font

I dont read small font on these pages anymore - What's the point of it? To save paper or to really irritate readers?

Benyoch (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs)

It's done by smart alecks who want to say something which is not directly relevant to the discussion. Of course, some users say things which are not relevant to the discussion in normal font as well. --Viennese Waltz 08:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were given an answer elsewhere, the last time you asked this question. Posting the same question in 2 places at the same time causes a hell of a lot more trouble than typing in small font. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was to save paper!!! Richard Avery (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's to safe bits! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many bits can it save? Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mony a mickle maks a muckle. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195 90.197.66.120 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

It wouldn't actually save any "bits", as those measure the amount of memory/disk space taken up by data, and the stored version of the text doesn't have any physical size associated with it. And, the HTML flags to change the text size add a bit (actually, more like 120 bits) to the memory requirement. It does reduce the number of pixels used on the screen, though, if that matters. StuRat (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

If the font is too small for you to see, you can enlarge text, in most browsers, with <CTRL>+, and shrink it back down, with <CTRL>-. StuRat (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your objection is to the content of the small text, then that's exactly why it's in a small font, so you can ignore it without wasting your time. StuRat (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes are often highly culture-specific. Some people could misinterpret comments made as jokes, in pages like this, as being serious comments. So, placing such comments in small text highlights the fact that they are not to be taken seriously, but are merely intended to add to the sum of human happiness. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]