Miscellaneous desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

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.

November 16

Nicaraguan power lines

A few years ago I touched a power line in a rural area of Nicaragua (well, not that rural I guess, right off the highway) and received a large shock. This was at a residence. How dangerous was this / what voltage was likely on the power line? 149.169.106.74 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, see Mains electricity by country for the official voltage - 120 V. Someone else should answer about the danger level. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your hands had been damp and your other hand earthed, then the current could easily have killed you at 120v. Often, dry conditions mean that skin resistance is high, limiting the current to just an unpleasant shock, but the danger of death can never be completely eliminated. Power lines in most countries are well out of reach. Dbfirs 08:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of Solo did Dangerous Dan McGrew play?

Back o' the bar, in a Solo game, sat Dangerous Dan McGrew

And watching his luck was his light o' love, the lady that's known as Lou

I had the notion, based on some geographical clues vaguely remembered from The Penguin Book of Card Games, that the Solo in question was a three-player skat-like game in which Jacks are always trump (if there is a trump), and rank JC JS JH JD, followed in the trump suit by ATKQ987, and all other suits rank ATKQ987. A bit of Googling suggests that this may be Six-bid Solo (on which WDNHAAOE).

But our solo whist article claims Dan for itself. Solo whist seems to have some similarities with Six-bid Solo in the names and approximate meanings of some of the bids, but success is determined purely by number of tricks rather than by card values, and the Tens are apparently not promoted, and it's a four-player game.

Can anyone settle the question? And, shouldn't we have an article on Six-bid Solo? I'm not quite sure that's right either — this link does not mention Jacks being trump or Tens being promoted above the King. --Trovatore (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Canyon Trail (east of Roosevelt Point)

For the life of me, I can't figure out what trail this is (or if it's a trail at all). It's EAST of Roosevelt Point (on the Walhalla Plateau, North Rim).

http://toolserver.org/~geohack/geohack.php?params=36_13_28_N_111_55_35_W

What trail is this? Tonto? Nankoweap? An unnamed primitive trail? Or is it just a stream bed or something? It's clearly visible from Roosevelt Point, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorcherokee (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a dry stream bed to me. Rmhermen (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's just a canyon bottom -- probably very difficult to get to. Looie496 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's called Kwagunt canyon, and apparently it's possible to hike up it from the river, although challenging. Looie496 (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be very careful about hiking off of established trails in the Grand Canyon. Certainly you should not do so alone or if you are not an experienced desert and off-trail mountain hiker, and you must be sure to bring enough water to meet your needs until you reach a sure source of drinkable water. That can mean a very heavy load of water if you start from the bottom of the canyon and are considering hiking off trail to the rim. You would need at least two days for such a hike, depending on the distance and the difficulty of the route. And you would need to carry enough water for the entire hike, which would limit the amount of food and gear that you could carry. The biggest danger, of course, is that you could be injured or dehydrated in a remote area and could be dead by the time a search party finds you. A lesser danger is that you are alive when a search party finds you and then have to pay the bill for their efforts. Marco polo (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of CEO

What is the name of CEO of Swiss Timing LTD?59.180.145.25 (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I have added a title to stop this being part of the question above... gazhiley 10:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On December 16, 2011, it was Eckhard Frank.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no British company registered with that name - what area are you enquiring about? Gurumaister (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of a table knife

Does anyone know the name of the metal collar/band of metal on an old fashioned table/eating knife that is found between the blade and handle, presumably covering up where the tang enters the handle. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.180.220 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bit between the sharpened edged and the handle is traditional called a guard. I don't know if this is the answer to your question though. Can you link to a image.Aspro (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page has some very detailed knife parts diagrams which confirm it's a guard. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an ebay page with the kind of knives I mean, it is the name of the metal "collar" between blade and handle I'm after. javascript:;http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/10-QUALITY-VINTAGE-TROVATO-L-HARRISON-FAUX-BONE-STAINLESS-TABLE-DESSERT-KNIVES-/370689387428?pt=UK_Collectables_Kitchenalia_RL&hash=item564ecf2ba4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.180.220 (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have an article on everything you know: Parts of a Knife which says it's a ricasso, or it could be a choil. This page calls it a bolster though. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you keep people who aren't supposed to call you from calling you?

I'm in the US and I'm listed on the national do-not-call list. I keep getting calls from a lower credit card rate thing. It used to say "consider this your last call. Press 3 to be removed from the list". I did press 3 on many calls, but I kept getting them. Now they don't say that, but the calls keep coming. If I get on the line, as soon as I say "do not call list" they abruptly hang up. Their phone number is 258-000-xxxx, which is probably bogus - the 000 exchange and there doesn't seem to be a 258 area code. Is there a way to stop these calls? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get a new phone number. --Jayron32 20:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cold calling idiots are refining their approaches and training in order to be less bothered by people who wish to give their staff lectures about why they shouldn't be calling. Just as Bubba73 says, these staff are now trained to hang up without comment as soon as they detect any sign of reluctance on the part of the person being called. This is even more incredibly rude than cold calling in the first place, but it does have the positive effect that the staff (once trained to do it consistently) no longer have any feelings of guilt about dismissing the very legitimate complaints of the person being called.

I've experimented with different ways of dealing with this.

Directing an immediate string of foul-mouthed abuse at the caller is relatively ineffective (since they are trained to expect it and to just hang up immediately). I also worry that, since these calls are often recorded, some companies may even try to take action against you for it.
Saying "oh, that's my dad, wait a moment and I'll get him" is vaguely amusing for the first couple of times, but (unlike cold callers a few years ago) if you keep them waiting more than five seconds they'll just hang up as per usual, so not really effective.
Saying "oh, that's my dad, I'm sorry, he died in 1908 / yesterday / earlier this afternoon" may provide slightly more amusement but I haven't tried it yet. If you do the 1908 variant really well, with just the right tone of surprise in your voice that they should want him, they should end the call politely rather than just hanging up on you (you win extra points for this as you can then either end the call politely yourself, or not.)
"Oh, that's my son, he's only four!"
Variations on the above... it's your son and he died last winter and he died of ... all sorts of implausible things. And so on. I once convinced an "injury claims" service to begin opening a claim on my behalf about an injury I sustained from an elephant.
Hanging up without comment (you really have to train yourself to be able to do this without even pausing or saying goodbye) is a fair and just way to react to their approach, and the unexpected suddenness of it is satisfying, although of course it only holds them up a few seconds and won't shock them much.
If they don't give their name, ask for their name; when they give you their name, say, "Oh, hello name" either as pleasantly as possible or with as much contempt as you can possibly manage, then immediately hang up without further comment. Worth experimenting to get exactly the tone you like. (The third option for tone here is nonchalant - get this exactly right and they may well be convinced you hung up by accident.)
Get their name and then say, "Well, name, I hope you're able to find a proper job soon", as politely as possible, then hang up. It's vital to make sure you hang up before they do (you may need to practice talking faster just to manage this).

Hope this helps you to deal with these calls, even though it won't help you to make them stop calling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much less satisfying would be to get a phone that allows you to bar certain area codes from calling you. I'm sure they exist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to stop the calls, not have fun with them. A few years ago I asked the phone company about their "call block" service, and they said that I could no block them, if it is a long-distance call. And if I get a new phone number, what is to stop them from calling it? What if it is unlisted? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It usually takes the 30 days allowed by law for then to stop calling. A friend who was getting similar calls about lowering his utility rates had the same issue, it finally stopped 30 days after he spoke to a live rep. How long ago did you first press 3? μηδείς (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the national do-not-call list for years and I started pressing 3 to tell them to take me off the list several months ago. I've tried speaking to a live person twice (including today) and they immediately hang up once I ask them not to call. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But if everyone relieved their own stress level slightly by "having fun" with these jokers, then these jokes would learn not to waste their time by bothering us like this. Just my approach. And yes, most of the unsolicited calls I get are unlisted - that's why I hit back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these characters don't care about the do-not-call list. You could get a system with capability of blocking phone numbers. Some VOIP systems have that. If that's too much trouble, just check the caller ID, and if you don't recognize it, don't answer it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do have caller ID and check it, but I still have to get up to check it (depending on where I am). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An option would be to get a phone where you do not have to get up to check the caller ID. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have five phones throughout the house. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Bugs is correct, a lot of these callers simply don't care. You cannot sue them yourself. The best that can happen is if there are enough complaints they'll get fined by their state attorney general or regulatory agency. And they will simply route calls from out of state or out of the country to avoid this. There's usually no way you can prove that you have requested to be on their do not call list. My strategy has always been to set the ans machine to 5 rings (most telemarketers will hang up at 4 rings) and to tell people to leave a message and if I am there I 9 and haven't seen their CID) I will pick up. I turn the ringer off at 9pm and back on when I get home. There are various white list/black list devices that will block unknown or let through only authorized calls, for example. Given it's a one-time expense I'd suggest you consider something similar. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that may be worth it! It is nice that you just have to have it on one line and it handles all extensions. I do have the answering machine set to five rings, but I still get messages and most calls I want to answer when they come in. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a TV feature recently about what to do with spam calls. They said actually the worst thing you can do is engage them in conversation, because then they know they have a live body and may pass your phone number along to other telemarketers. The best thing to do, short of call blocking is to not answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My dad answers them as if they called a 900 number he's pretending to work at, as best as he can without getting rung up on obscenity charges. They don't call as often anymore for some reason. If my cousin, my former minister, or I get the chance and aren't doing anything, we like to just waste their time, get them through all of their spiel until they have no additional material to spout off, and then go "No... I don't think so. Please don't call again." Both of these things apparently can and do build a reputation there. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could do like that one radio personality did, and pretend to be a policeman investigating a homocide scene, and ask the guy what his connection is to the deceased. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously his gay lover. :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. If you haven't heard it, it's on youtube, probably several places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had a hard enough time figuring out what Jack meant. please either explain, or provide a link, Bugs. 04:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

[2] Trio The Punch (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! I'm gonna try that tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day ..... -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, apart from the Telephone Preference Service for landline numbers, there is an app for your mobile phone called Mr. Number, and this app blocks numbers for you. You have to tell it which numbers to block, but once you have had one spam call you then tell it to block that number as spam. It will work with spam texts too. And it's free. And it's also in the US. Honestly, if my landline wasn't connected to my broadband service I'd ditch the landline because of the number of spam calls. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this news article yet. I don't know if the legal position would be quite as clear-cut in the USA, unfortunately. Tevildo (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One issue would be the recording of the calls, which can be illegal according to various state laws if both parties do not agree to it ahead of time. For out of state calls, the regulations are effing ridiculous. According to the FCC:

The FCC protects the privacy of telephone conversations by requiring notification before a recording device is used to record interstate (between different states) or international wireline calls. Interstate or international wireline conversations may not be recorded unless the use of the recording device is:
preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation; or
preceded by verbal notification that is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party; or
accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, sometimes called a “beep tone,” that automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use.
Also, a recording device can only be used if it can be physically connected to and disconnected from the telephone line or if it can be switched on and off.

And remember, this applies even if they have called you unsolicited. μηδείς (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the better. As soon as they hear that beep, they'll know they're being recorded, and they'll drop you like a hot potato. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd already have had to tell them they were being recorded--and it would mess up Tevildo's suggestion, which was the reason for my post. μηδείς (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Resolved - I hope. Thanks, I followed Medeis' suggestion and ordered one of those devices. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do make sure you report back. Might get one for my parents for Christmas. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You read my mind! I almost ordered two of them, but it didn't seem to save on shipping. My mother has bad knees, and she really complains about these calls. They get them too, even though I put them on the national do-not-call list. So I decided to try one myself before getting one for them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there is a very short and very incomplete article on these things: List of devices to screen telephone calls. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I got the device today. So far it hasn't had to block any calls. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you doing the white list or the black list? And does it allow people with a pin number to get through? μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now a blacklist, but this one is very flexible (which is why I selected it), having both methods. Right now it blocks all invalid numbers, "anon", "out of area", "private", and "unknown". I get a lot of those. You can also block area codes and exchanges. I would block all 800 numbers, but we get announcements from our child's school from an 800 number. When I find out that number, I can block all 800 numbers but then but that one on the whitelist. There is no PIN, but there are two types of whitelist: invited callers and VIP callers. Invited callers get through only at time range you specify whereas VIP callers get through all of the time. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can also block individual numbers (in addition to area codes, etc). You can enter known numbers into the block list; or if one gets through, hit the "block" button twice and it adds them to the block list. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants in Norman, Oklahoma

What are some good restaurants in the Norman, Oklahoma vicinity (Cleveland County, Oklahoma or McClain County, Oklahoma) that would be suitable for a date, with good food yet not too formal or expensive? I've already considered and rejected Olive Garden, Cracker Barrel, and Outback Steakhouse for this particular instance, although that's not to say similar restaurants wouldn't be acceptable. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a good place to get restaurant recommendations. I recommend either TripAdvisor or Yelp, both of which rank restaurants according to users' ratings, indicate the price range of each, and also list user reviews. Marco polo (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rapture

"in 1704, Sir Isaac Newton proposed that, based upon his calculations using figures from the Book of Daniel, the Apocalypse could happen no earlier than 2060." This a quote from rapture. how did isaac newton come up with 2060?203.112.82.129 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that quote have a source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the quote is here. It refers to a letter he wrote in 1704 and says: "Newton based this figure on religion rather than reasoning." There's another article about it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Religion rather than reasoning' sounds rather needlessly binary. Presumably Newton arrived at the figure by reasoning about religion, and (like the OP), I would be interested to know his basis. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Israeli exhibition that showed his papers is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to why that entry is under Rapture at all, unless we can demonstrate that Newton believed in the rapture. And that seems anachronistic, since as the article points out, the modern Protestant conception of the rapture was developed in the 1830s. Marnanel (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly before Newton's time, there was a rise in Millennialism, with people making various predictions on the end of days because they were tired of the Bad Shit™ and wanted Nice Things™. The exact schedule of said glorious Nigh Ends™ varied between the 1650s to the early 1700s, though no one cared to actually set an exact date as there's no point when it's ending anyway. The favorite, scariest, number being obviously 1666 AD with its surfeit of beasty marks. And it seemed likely too, with black death and wars and all that happening during that time. It panicked a few folks, including Newton himself. In his old age, ashamed at getting askeered of an apocalypse that didn't arrive, he decided to determine the date himself with SCIENCE!™ So he pored and calculated over the Bible. There are various vague predictions in it of course, which each spawned various WE ALL DIE!™ dates, but he specifically picked out a particular passage: Daniel 12, specifically 12:11 which says:

And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. Daniel 12:11

Taken literally, the prophecy says that a last empire will be established, and then 1260 days later, the temple of Jerusalem is desecrated and the world goes boom. The problem is defining which the last empire would be, as well as the correlation of the 1260 days with other numbers mentioned with it and in other books in the Revelation. This resulted in various aborted end of days predictions through the years.

Ghmyrtle's links above has a page that discusses how Newton came upon this and did marvelous SCIENCE!™ Here. Newton assumed, like many in his time assumed, that the last empire being talked about would be the Holy Roman Empire. It started around 800 AD with Charlemagne's coronation by Pope Leo III, and since the world didn't end 1260 days after and nor did it end in 1260 AD, Newton decided that the 1260 "days" actually means 1260 years; thus 800 AD + 1260 "days" (=years) = 2060 AD, or at least a little bit later, but certainly not within his lifetime. Whew. SCIENCE!™ ftw! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"And thet, my liege, is how we kneuw the Earth to be banahna-shaped. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

If I had to guess (based on other millenarian prophecies), he was probably thinking "well, God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, so God'll let the world exist 6000 years ('a day is as a thousand years to God, and a thousand years is as a day'), and establish the 1000 year kingdom after that." From there, it was a matter of deciding when year 0 of creation was. Since he wrote revisionist history to fit whatever schemes he wanted to believe, he probably arrived at 3940 BC as year 0 from the classic "add up all the ages in the genealogies in the Bible and subtract them from whenever Jesus was born, modified by "well, the Pharoahs had to live at this time based on absolutely nothing." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though, reading Obsidian Soul's post in more detail, would be just as likely to have been where Newton went, except that Obsidian Soul has a source while I am merely going on personal knowledge of other's eschatological paranoia. Ian.thomson (talk)

I think Obsidian Soul has it. That certainly explains the exactness of the date, and the reason why it's a minimum. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I get why it's a minimum. If God can squeeze an eternity into the flap of a gnat's wing and vice versa, then it seems to me it could go either way. (Reminds me of a Galactic Standard Week turning out to be one hour.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I was partly wrong. The source of the 1260 is not Daniel 12:11, which actually says 1,290 days. The 1260, comes from an earlier figure in Daniel 12:7 apparently:

And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished Daniel 12:7

The phrase "a time, times, and half a time" is taken to mean 3.5 days. Given day=year, as usual, that would be 3.5 years, a biblical year is 360 days divided into 30 months. 3.5 x 360 = 1260 years. The phrase (a time, times, and half a time) is also in Rev 12:14; 42 months (which is 42 * 30 days = 1260) is in Rev 11:2; and the actual number 1260 is in Rev. 11:3. Given all these, the end times would begin in 1260, then the desecration happens in 1290, and finally the end of everything in 1335.

This is what Newton said exactly:

So then the time times and half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years and an half, reckoning twelve months to a year and 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived [sic] kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060. It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner. This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail. Christ comes as a thief in the night, and it is not for us to know the times and seasons which God hath put into his own breast.

My mind hurts.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one to be confused - Daniel himself responded to the vision, "And I heard, but I did not understand" (Daniel 12:8). The vision's reply is instructive: he tells Daniel not to worry about it because it's a closed book until the end of time, but (significantly) "They will be clarified and whitened, and many will be purified, and the wicked will pervert [them], and all the wicked will not understand, but the wise will understand." (Dan 12:10). Rashi's commentary explains as follows:

"They will be clarified and whitened: [i. e.,] these calculations.

and… will be purified: [i.e.,] many [will be purified] by them to understand them.

and the wicked will pervert: the calculations by computing them incorrectly, and when they terminate, they will say that there is no more redemption.

will not understand: All the wicked [will not understand] them.

but the wise will understand: them when the time of the end arrives."

In other words, only the wise will ever understand this prophecy and they'll only understand it just before the world ends! --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly relevant, but one of the aforementioned millennialist groups during Newton's time were the Fifth Monarchists, if you would like to read about what those kinds of groups tended to believe. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense for a young woman to anti-romantic and still find guys attractive?

Does it make sense for a young woman to have no interest in dating or have relationships with guys but find some guys attractive? Is that called anti-romantic? Neptunekh94 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She could be opposed to traditional notions of romance out of feminist or conservative values, but still be heterosexual. (Too many) guys are not into romance but are certainly attracted to women, why wouldn't there be women like that? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense. It's the default guy behavior. Or at least we pretend it is.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have known many women who certainly found men (or women) attractive but refused to date because they felt they weren't ready for a relationship, either due to a recent breakup or being too busy with work/school. It never struck me as weird at all. According to romantic comedies, that describes at least half of the women on the planet. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. She can still be sexually attracted to guys and mastrubate to their pics without expressing any romantic interests in them, such as dating, et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or she can appreciate male beauty in the same way I appreciate the beauty of trees, say. —Tamfang (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're sexually turned on by trees, it would be a bad analogy. Futurist110 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant word in the question is attractive. That's not exclusively sexual on my planet. —Tamfang (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is exclusively sexual on my planet. Futurist110 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you live on a different planet than most people. It's not often used by men in relation to other people, but women often use it of other women, and only a small percentage of users of the word are lesbians. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard a girl call another girl attractive. Pretty, Yes. Attractive, No. How about we ask Neptunekh94 what he means by the term "attractive"? Futurist110 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my circle of (largely) female friends, I can confirm that words "attractive" "pretty" "stunning" "sexy" "phwoar" etc etc are regularly used by them, to describe men and women alike... And only one or two of my friends are Bi... And most of the woman are either engaged or married, or in long term manogamous relationships... As my brother-in-law once told me "Just cause you own a portrait, doesn't mean you can't visit the gallery"... So therefore it is perfectly reasonable for men and women to find someone attractive without wanting a relationship... gazhiley 09:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think of it as the female equivalent to something W.C. Fields once said: "To me, women are like elephants - I like to look at 'em; but I wouldn't want to own one." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of many different patterns recognised in the asexual community. Some refer to it as grey-A. --ColinFine (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]