Miscellaneous desk
< November 5	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 7 >

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 6

Pastrami

What is "pastrami"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.20.107 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Pastrami. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bellybuttons

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey Wikipedia geniuses,

Did Adam and Eve have bellybuttons?

Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of Martin Gardner's 2000 book Did Adam and Eve Have Navels, and then you can tell us. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I guess that's a no. Real thanks! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam who? HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first ancestors. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been your first ancestors. Pretty sure they weren't mine. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right huh... Gonna add that to my bio one day. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know two girls without bellybuttons. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Hitchcock? :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conjoined twins. They were joined in the area of the abdomen, sharing one umbilical cord off to one side, and were successfully separated. They do, in fact, have artificial "belly buttons" created by a plastic surgeon. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, not that old canard again. Why are you here, really? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to test your knowledge and expand mine. Haha. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would expand your knowledge by reading the relevant articles, such as Adam and Eve, where this is discussed. Since Adam and Eve are fictional characters, and their belly buttons are not discussed in the Bible, you are welcome to decide this question for yourself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Adam and eve were fictional, then what would that make god? Another fairy tale. Wow. :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the subject of some typical Purim Torah, whereby, with the aid of a gruesome pun and faux talmudic exegetical logic applied to the opening of the Book of Esther, you can prove that both Vashti and Ahasuerus had two bellybuttons [each], thus properly balancing nature, for Adam and Eve had none. This sort of sensibly nonsensical response is perfect for this sensibly nonsensical question. --Dweller (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post withdrawn per request -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how about Eve? :)))) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"How thin is drawn the line between humour and puerile irritation". Richard Avery (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This tread begins with a piped insult and gets worse. μηδείς (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gruffalo

Where is the gruffalo illustrated in Monkey puzzle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.171.123 (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just searched through my copy of Monkey Puzzle and can't find a picture of the Gruffalo anywhere but on the cover where it says "By the creators of". Are you sure he's in there somewhere? I couldn't find any reference on the internet of the Gruffalo being in there anywhere. Mingmingla (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please link to something? What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children !? μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My error. I was too excited that anyone else knew "Monkey Puzzle" to properly link. Mingmingla (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Gruffalo. Monkey Puzzle (book). I very much doubt the first is found in the second; certainly it is not referenced in the text. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does happen when well-known characters show up in subsequent, unrelated works by the same author/illustrator, etc. For example, Pigeon from Mo Willems' work shows up hidden in almost all his other picture books. In the case here, the Gruffalo is far and away his creators' best know work. Mingmingla (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Google Germany have "+Ich" while all the other local Googles (that I've seen) have "+You"?

I noticed while looking at the top left-hand corner of the local Google main pages that all the versions of "+You" that I had yet seen had the second person nominative singular (except for France, which has "+Vous" instead of "+Tu", and Russia, which has "+Вы" instead of "+Ты") pronoun in their respective languages, except for one: Germany, which has the first person nominative singular. If you go to google.de, you see "+Ich," which translates to "+I" in English. Why is this? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the actual reason, but it does work as a solution to any Du/Sie over-familiarity issues. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The French and Russians chose formal, the Spanish, Italians, Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes went with familiar. Is it common for Germans to be more undecided compared to other nationalities as to which way to go as far as T-V distinction is concerned? 20.137.2.50 (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are probably not going to be able to get inside the brains of whoever at Google makes those decisions, but Google has had a lot of conflict with German authorities, and, to a degree, with the German public over privacy issues. (See this article.) I can imagine that they shied away from using the second person for psychological reasons, since it makes Google the agent offering you (perhaps suspect) services. Whereas using I makes the user the agent and therefore more subconsciously responsible for his or her actions and their consequences. Just a guess. Marco polo (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They had two choices for "you": "Sie" or "du". "Sie" is also "They", which is ambiguous. And some people don't appreciate being called "du" by strangers. Both choices had disadvantages, but "ich" seems not to have such problems. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a lot of German companies that my company collaborates with (yes, I am a collaborator), and dutzening is very common. I have no idea why Google doesn't do it. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know in Italy it is standard for advertising to address the reader/viewer as tu (or occasionally voi, but I think this is the plural rather than the dated-or-regional formal), even though many of those readers and viewers would expect to be addressed as Lei if the advertiser met them in the street. I interpret this as meaning that the advertising is speaking, not in the voice of an unknown person, but in that of a "generic friend". If German does the same, it doesn't surprise me, though I could have believed the reverse as well; there can be subtle differences in how different languages do these things. --Trovatore (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Deed Poll Service

I am interested to know how the UK Deed Poll service worked in the 1960s. Would applicants have needed to present themselves at the offices in person? If so, was there an office in London or anywhere near Oxford? What would the procedure have involved? I have tried emailing the current provider but have received no response. I would be particularly interested to hear from anyone who has actually changed their name using Deed Poll in the early 1960s and what sort of experience you had . 212.183.128.22 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No references, and no personal experience, but my understanding is that you would have gone to a solicitor or a Commissioner for Oaths to get the documents drawn up, and they would have sent them off to the courts for registration. No personal appearance would be needed. Rojomoke (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Deed Poll service" as in some sort of government department, a deed poll' is simply a deed that binds only one person - the person who is signing it. It has no more magic than any contract (actually less, because a contract is between two or more people) and you can do it yourself provided you make it clear enough to be legally effective. There are forms that you can buy where you fill in the blanks that makes the job easier. If you want to make sure it is legally effective, you hire a solicitor to draft up the deed poll for you. The procedure Rojomoke mentioned of enrolling it at the court is optional - but it's more secure and legally speaking more convenient than keeping it in your own safe. This has a good explanation of the various ways you can change your name, including by deed poll. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric Surveillance in Popular Culture?

Are there any movies or TV shows that feature biometric surveillance as a central topic? For example, Minority Report with Tom Cruise features premediation and the ethical issues surrounding it as a central topic. Is there something similar for biometric surveillance? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biometrics plays a big role in Gattaca, paired up with eugenics. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a central topic but voice print analysis is used as a plot point in Sneakers. Dismas|^(talk) 08:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass surveillance#Literature and movies might help. They're also a staple (though not usually central, and not specifically biometric) in almost all cyberpunk fiction.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If seen gait analysis used as a means to identify an individual in a TV series or movie. Unfortunately, I can remember the title. Astronaut (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enemy of the State perhaps? Astronaut (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found one. Echelon Conspiracy (2009), also known as The Gift. Not purely biometric surveillance, but it plays a large part in it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Ruettiger

Rudy was able to dress for a Notre Dame football game. Only a certain number of players are allowed to dress for a game. Which player did Rudy replace? 165.138.223.4 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any game-by-game rosters for the 1975 Fighting Irish. In the pre-digital age, such information may not have been scrupulously kept. The best I can find is this hand-typed document from the actual year in question: [1] which confirms Ruettiger's one tackle for loss during the 1975 season. After a good effort search, all I can find is other documents derivative of that one: that is likely the actual source document for all other statistical information about Ruettiger or the 1975 Fighting Irish team in general. If you were to find it, what you would need is a game roster for both the Georgia Tech game (November 8, 1975) as well as the roster for both the prior and following game. There may not even have been a single player for whom Rudy was exchanged for: the exact "dressed" roster likely varied by more than 1 player each week, given the size of "dressed" rosters in college football, there could have been half a dozen or more players that were different from week to week. --Jayron32 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what "dressing for a game" is all about, Jayron? I understand about team uniforms, but why would there be a limit on how many players can wear one? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rosters are limited in number. Only a certain number can suit up to play. In college football you can have 105 players on the roster (but only 60 - 72 on the traveling team along with up to 60 non-uniformed personnel). The professionals are limited to only 53 per team but can only dress 45 for each game. Rmhermen (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other eight either prance around nekkid or learn to dress themselves. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rmhermen has the basics: There are multiple rosters: There's everyone who gets to practice with the team (105 in the NCAA DI, 53 in the NFL) and there's the number which get named to the game-day roster, who could be put in a game (and thus wear uniforms, as opposed to "street clothes", and are "dressed for the game"), this is 72 for the NCAA and 45 for the NFL. So, assuming the numbers were the same 40 years ago as today (no guarantee), that would mean that Notre Dame had 105 people who were on the team, but were only allowed to name 72 of those as able to play in any given game. What the OP was asking was, when Rudy Ruettiger (a member of the 105-person team roster) was added to the 72-man game-day roster, who did he replace? --Jayron32 04:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]