Miscellaneous desk
< October 7	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 9 >

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.

October 8

Screencap

Can anyone tell me, from this screencap: http://copytaste.com/f1668 what mobile (company/make/model) this might be? Thanks in advance. =) 117.226.205.106 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Operating system is Android, and it seems to be running on Sense UI, indicating that it's an HTC device. From the general 'feel' of it, I suspect it's either Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) or Android 4.1 (Jelly Bean). I don't think more information than that can be gleaned from the picture. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Lawson, wife of Ted Lawson

Ted Lawson was one of the pilots on the Doolittle raid on Japan, April 1942. Information on Ted is covered in a Wikipedia article. In that article, his wife, Ellen, is mentioned. Is there information about her in your files, or can it be created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shocker21 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Ted W. Lawson. Ellen Lawson does not appear to have a Wikipedia article in her own right. Unless she satisfies the criteria at WP:Notability, it will unfortunately not be possible to create one. I cannot find any other mentions of her on Wikipedia apart from her portrayal in Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo by Phyllis Thaxter. - Ka renjc 19:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teach me everything there is to know.

Hi. Topic. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 21:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just read every article in wikipedia, and you'll be off to a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Six by nine. Forty-two. That's it. That's all there is. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to answer questions that can be answered with a reference.

Life is not a question, and so the question of an answer does not arise. The same is true of the universe and everything.

But those links might stimulate you to ask a question, in which case you'd be welcome to return. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep clicking on links and picking up,knowledge. We have an article on everything. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If six by nine is 42, Cucumber Mike, you and I do arithmetic in different universes. Bielle (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sorta the point. --Jayron32 22:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is 6 x 9
The answer is 42
The base is 13

Wnt (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Adams made it very clear that even he doesn't write jokes in base 13. The point is simply that the computer was broken by the arrival of the telephone sanitisers and got the wrong question. --Tango (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AllPages. WP:Wikipedia has an article on everything! PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I have a question now, so this thread hasn't been a total waste of time:

When Adams referred to "Life, the Universe and Everything", what was this "Everything" that wouldn't have been already covered by "the Universe"?
Is he getting into multiple universes, and if so, why is the one we're all in called "the Universe", as if there's only one? Shouldn't it have been "Life, a Universe and Everything"?
Or, to be strictly correct, "Life, a Universe and Everything Else"?-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, we can't ask him anymore... He's a little late. --Jayron32 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then he's wiped, as far as I'm concerned. I cannot abide unpunctuality. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're a particular bit of the totality, and the totality isn't capable of knowing itself, I'd suggest that you're not capable of knowing the totality too. So you'll just have to put up with knowing everything that you can know rather than knowing everything that there is to know. You'll know everything that you can know when you die, and you'll know that whether you attend to knowing particular things or not. If you're interesting in knowing things in a particular area of human knowability, then maybe we can help you further. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly more facts are true at any one time in the universe than can be recorded in a storage device contained within. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the colossal number of facts, or the details of the facts themselves? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you assumed that each "fact" only took a single bit of information to encode, it can't all be recorded. I'm thinking of facts such as "particle A has position [x,y,z] and momentum [px,py,pz]". That's actually six facts. Even if you pretended you could encode that in six bits, how many particles does a storage device need to be built out of to store those six bits? It's been a long time since I read the theoretical work on this, but some smart people have argued it's more than one, so you're shit out of luck - i.e. if it takes more than one particle to store the information about one particle, then you can't record all information. You can also make a thermodynamic argument about how there is a limit to how much information can be stored in the universe because of entropy, blah blah, I don't remember it all that clearly, clearly. And if you throw in that you want the history of every particle, then you're even further screwed. You can of course argue that compression algorithms may be used to store information about more particles than your storage device is built out of, but that restricts the hypothetical universes you could store information on to those that are sufficiently compressible. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A is A, the rest just requires that you look and listen. μηδείς (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was born about ten thousand years ago

I know everything there is to know

I saw Peter, Paul, and Moses

Play ring around the roses

And I'll lick the guy who says it isn't so

--Trovatore (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Andrew Carnegie already did this, but I am willing to give it another shot with $26 million (and that's just for Pittsburgh's main branch!). Marketdiamond (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long nail on the small finger

Hi all,

I'm a flight attendant from France and I realized some male passengers, mainly from China, let their nail grow on their small finger. What is the reason? Is it religious or cultural? That makes my female colleagues totally disgusted cause it doesn't look very nice... shock of cultures :-D

Thanks for your help and if you know the reason, please write it on the "nail" or "little finger" Wiki article.

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.144.51 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Dictonary has some theories, from which Cecil favours "sign of culture, breeding, and wealth." -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I assume you meant to write "The Straight Dope", right? Someguy1221 (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes. I started with an "urban dictionary and the daily mail says it's a cokenail" before I found a somewhat credible source instead. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Chinese WP's article on nails: "In some Asian countries, the men of the upper classes of society sometimes stay long fingernails (sometimes only the little finger), to show their social status do not need to do a manual."[1]. Basically the same rationale behind foot binding.A8875 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally witnessed its use for cocaine by rather unsavory characters. I also knew professionally two very wellkempt gentlemen, both Puerto Ricans in NYC, who obviously prided themselves greatly in their grooming who also had this affectation. (One had the habit of sanding down and then repainting his stovetop on a weekly basis, I kid you not. The other was always formally dressed as if for a GQ cover.) Neither seemed to be a cocaine user. I was curious, but not close enough to feel that I had the right to ask the reason. μηδείς (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in China in 1992, it was explained to me that it was so they could pick their nose with it. This is actually what was told to me, and social status didn't seem to come into it, because it was widespread, even among people from rural areas coming to the city looking for work as cheap one-day labourers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good sense of humor, those people. It is indeed a voluntary mark of status or breeding, telling you that the person self-identifies as a scholar rather than a laborer. Take that as you may. They are less and less common, but you do see them from time to time if you are vigilant. Are they occasionally repurposed for other tasks? Obviously that's at the discretion of the bearer... The Masked Booby (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The practical meaning these days is actually a bit different to the traditional meaning. From what I've seen living in China, only people from rural areas with peasant/labourer backgrounds grow their fingernails like this - they might *think* it makes them look sophisticated, but you'll never see someone from, say, Beijing or Shanghai with fingernails like that. It's only really done by someone from a low-class background who wants to show that he (always 'he') has moved up in the world, so in practical terms, the signal it really gives off is pretty much the opposite of what was intended. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is probably why I noticed it so much more in the peasant labourers in China, rather than the city people. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Indians so rude?

Hi all,

Another question from me. I work with Indians customers and you can't imagine how rude, impatient and annoying they are. All the people I know who deal with them really hate them now. Could you tell me if rudeness is normally accepted in India? For example, they would call you all the time, even when they can see you're busy, they would ask you for something, wait you come with it then ask for something else and all of this without a smile. Also, no one of them ever uses the words "thank you", "please", "could I" but only "give me". Is it the way they talk in India? I noticed the most polite people are from USA, Germany or the Philippines so I guess it's just cultural and they don't mean to be so rude to us. Anyway, if they would behave that way in Europe, people would tell then off straight away.

Thanks for sharing experience if you dealt with Indians or know their culture.

Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.144.51 (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you do mean people from India, not Native Americans, right ? StuRat (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that cultural differences are often perceived as rude, when they are not intended that way. For example, Westerners often stand a greater distance away from people, than in other cultures, and this can be taken as a sign of contempt. StuRat (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note sure if it applies here, but the caste system in India formerly led them to treat people of a lower caste in an "aloof" manner. Perhaps remnants of that attitude still remain, with people in servile positions taking on the role of lower caste members. StuRat (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Most of the people in India are not good in English. They mostly speak broken English. That could be a major reason why they appear rude to you. --Anbu121 (talk me) 23:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone even answer that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same as any Q: To spread knowledge, dispel misconceptions, etc. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The initial question is blatant racism; it is sad to see anyone respond to it or take it seriously. This section should be removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP claimed in the previous section to be French. I will stop now, to let y'all recall your individual anecdotes on the alleged inherent rudeness of the French. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's often extraordinarily tempting to take particular negative experiences we've had with people or groups from another culture and extrapolate them to the entire culture.

I could tell you about just about the worst day of my life, spent trying to get a visa for India at the Indian Embassy in Colombo, navigating my way through the world's most inefficient and grossly unfair and needlessly time consuming series of bureaucratic procedures - which we were just expected to know in detail, without ever being informed - and controlled by the world's most openly corrupt and pointedly unhelpful officials. It should have take maybe an hour, tops. It took 6 hours.

But bad and unforgettable as that horror day was, do I take it that all Indian business systems are like that, or that all Indians are rude and corrupt and indifferent? No, of course not. I found plenty of counter-examples in India and plenty of evidence of general generosity and fairness and kindness, and that's what I prefer to remember most.

We also tend to view in a negative light any diversions from our expectations of people's behaviours. But usually there are good reasons for those behaviours, and much can be learned from them. In India, because of the population and its unrelenting demands, it's essential for service providers to be absolutely firm with customers, otherwise they'll get manipulated from pillar to post. Firmness can often seem like rudeness, particularly in a country that has little or no experience of the extreme political correctness we're unfortunately afflicted with in the West. Western service providers can be firm too, but they bring it out only when the occasion demands it. Indian service providers wear firmness as a badge of honour and brandish it aggressively and pre-emptively. Because if they don't, they'll come off second best.

For their part, customers are used to having to deal with massive queues that usually fail to operate with any sense of order, and often the only way to not spend a whole day waiting is to bribe or bluster or harangue your way to the front, leaving in your wake people who've been waiting even longer than you. That "survival of the fittest" mentality is just the way it is there, and people have those cultural expectations ingrained, just as we have ours with us wherever we go. Essentially, there's a different type of relationship between customers and officials there than obtains in the West, and that colours their behaviour when they become customers in other countries.

And remember, they probably talk about us in similarly scathing ways, so it's not all one way. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For things which are considered rude in America/Britain but not in India, the Mumbaikar article has some interesting examples: not saying 'Thank you' to someone holding door for you; not holding the door itself open for the previous or next person to come in through; not smiling at other passing people. Cultural differences like these probably account for most of the perceived rudeness. Cheers, davidprior ^t/_c 02:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of rude Indian people is a pejorative stereotype. The inverse stereotype would be the ugly American. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 02:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The curse of door chivalry is something that varies from place to place in the U.S. - you'll never encounter it in Chicago, for example. Tipping varies greatly between the U.S. and (specific parts of) Europe, Asia etc. Given the degree to which exploitation and outright slavery are reported to occur in India, I would not be surprised if the OP has observed some phenomenon, but he should get a better answer if he provides more detail of where, who etc. Wnt (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the OP's primary experience of Indians is as passengers while they are serving as a flight attendent. Perhaps for Emirates? Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, I didn't experience just one bad day but every single day I deal with Indian customers from any city (Dehli, Mumbai, Bangalore, etc). And for the records: no, I'm not racist at all but yes, I really hate rude people.

"I'm not racist, but..." — you need to quit your job. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had several Indian coworkers, and never found any of them to be rude. Perhaps it's only how they behave as customers which you interpret as rude. StuRat (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were they sacred coworkers? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The boss was expecting them to be more productive, having multiple arms and all, but was disappointed to find out they only had two arms apiece. :-) StuRat (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Orking cows is illegal in several states and the District of Columbia! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it illegal?. Richard Avery (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I'd say that in general, Indians are far more polite than most Westerners. However, in the concrete example of "could I have" vs "give me", an explanation might be that politeness is lost in translation. In Hindi (and I suppose similar features exist in some other Indian languages as well), there are five different levels of politeness in imperatives in verbs. Depending on social hierarchy and respect, the speaker choses which level to use. Thus an additional word, like "please", is superflous. I always find this a bit confusing, never sure of what level to use, in the end I tend to opt for the overly polite diunga (with the risk of sounding sarcastic). Likewise, for (many) Indians the question "what is your name?" can be a bit rude, therefore the wording "what is your good name?" is preferred. --Soman (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be as simple as a lack of confidence in the the language. At the moment, I often have to use a language other than English, but my lack of confidence in the language sometimes leads me to forget to add the simple pleasantries of 'please' and 'thank you'. Or maybe it is minor cultural differences. For example, when handing over money at the supermarket checkout, the locals will say 'please' (presumably meaning 'please accept this money'), and yet I forget to do that in over 90% of occasions because in the UK no one says please when handing over money. Nobody has yet told me that I am being rude, but maybe they are too polite to say so - at least to my face, but maybe they do complain on the internet: "Why are British so rude?". Astronaut (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My kind always do lament "why are Earthlings so rude" . . . maybe I have said too much lol. Marketdiamond (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that speakers of many Indian languages are even more likely to forget "please" and "thank you" because in those languages form of address is used to express politeness more than adding a phrase -- Q Chris (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]