Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 October 16

< October 15	<<Sep \| October \| Nov>>	October 17 >

Humanities

Science

Mathematics

Computing/IT

Language

Miscellaneous

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 at one of the pages linked to above.

college basketball

what is the biggest stadium capacity for college basketball and which school has it? also, if its not the same school, which school has the largest average attendance?

Doing a google search for "largest college basketball" had Marriott Center as the second or third result. That page says: "...would remain the nation's largest basketball-specific facility on a college campus until 1987, when the University of Tennessee opened Thompson-Boling Arena. Previously, the Cougars basketball team played at the Smith Fieldhouse." And the article for the Thompson-Boling Arena states: "In terms of seating capacity, Thompson-Boling is the largest facility ever built specifically for basketball in the United States." Dismas|^(talk) 00:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as attendance goes, this gives date for the 2004 season. Dismas|^(talk) 00:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming, of course, that the football stadiums used for the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship don't count - probably a fair assumption, though. --Maxamegalon2000 02:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doléen

How do I find the town of Doléen in France, near Brest?--Filll 00:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find the town how? Find the Doléen article? That will literally only tell you it's on the west coast of France. Or do you need lat/long coordinates? Dismas|^(talk) 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked your question on the French Wikipedia reference desk (here). Maybe somebody there will know the answer. Philbert^2.71828 01:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used multimap, which has good detailed, interactive online maps of France (and the rest of Europe), searched extensively around Brest, and found nothing. I searched Doléen using their search function and got nothing. Then I tried strings similar to Doléen. The closest approximation I could find is Doëlan, a tiny village, on the coast of Brittany southwest of Clohars-Carnoët, near Quimperlé, but over 100 km from Brest. The fact that the tiny village, or hamlet, of Doëlan, is searchable in multimap, but Doléen is not, makes me suspect that "Doléen" is misspelled or has been renamed. Marco polo 02:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that Doléen and Doëlan are the same town. The reason is that in this part of Brittany, they do not speak Parisian French and there can be considerable differences in some words, place names, pronunciations, etc. The reason I am interested is that the first few submarine transatlantic telegraph cables went through Doléen/Doëlan I believe, but I have not established it yet to my satisfaction.--Filll 03:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, here is a translation from the french-speaking help-desk : “A friend of mine from Brest proposes Déolen, hamlet included in the town of fr:Locmaria-Plouzané, neighbouring Brest ([1]). It seems to match better and is confirmed by this book.” HaguardDuNord. The reference is a journal article: Jean-Francois Douguet, Locmaria-Plouzané: a mad dream, crossing the Atlantic Ocean, Les Cahiers de l'Iroise, no. 188, pp. 59-60 (2000). — Cæruleum 09:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again from the French-speaking reference desk. More information from this document (in French). Relevant excerpt: “On the French side, the first cable, installed in 1869, was ending at the north of the fr:Goulet de Brest on a beach under the fr:Petit Minou lighthouse. In 1879, a place away from Brest was chosen to build the terminal installations. The Déolen bay at the north of Petit Minou lighthouse was chosen. However, the extension to Porthcurnow ended at fr:Brignogan to avoid a long detour around Ushant island.” — Cæruleum 12:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the first cable of Déolen was installed the 20 June 1869, according to an exposition about transatlantic cables presented last Febuary at Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. — Cæruleum 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,I can confirm that the "french cable" ends at Déolen as indicated above. Beeing a French telecom engineer (now retired) I was able to visit the site (rather difficult to reach) where a piece of the cable can be seen laying on the ground. The station does not exist anymore. I was also able to visit the site of the other cable end at Orleans on Cape Cod (USA MASS). It was ten years ago and the cabin was still there as a museum fitted with most of the original telecom equipment Alain LASMAN 5 MARCH 2007

CSI Miami Commercial

Does anyone know the song that is played during the commercial to the episode that will air on Monday, October 16th? Deltacom1515 02:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what country? - 131.211.210.14 09:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, it's the US commercial. Deltacom1515 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not just the teme tune to the series? Won't Get Fooled Again? Kilo•T 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Siblings Marrying Siblings

I’ve just been to see Hephzibah, a documentary about Hephzibah Menuhin. I knew she was married to an Australian for a time, and I knew her brother Yehudi’s first wife was also an Australian, but I didn’t know the 2 spouses were themselves brother and sister (Lindsay and Nola Nicholas). Does anyone know of other cases where notable siblings married siblings? JackofOz 05:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chang and Eng Bunker. Clarityfiend 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It does seem to be a very rare phenomenon. JackofOz 02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truck sales in Antananarivo?

Hi I am looking for truck sales in Anatananarivo Madagascar. I need to contact a dealer for information but not sure how to reach someone who can help. To be more specific I am look for Nissan Diesel sales.

Try this, in Mozambique: [2] -THB 12:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Nissan Diesel website, the distributor in Madagascar is "Ocean Trade Compagnie." The website gives a phone number to dial. You will probably need to speak French. Marco polo 19:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suicide

whats the best,cheapest n least painfull way to commit suicide...not that am thinking bout it

Trying watching the Fox News Channel. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reccomending Fox news because they often report suicide, or is the channel really that boring? :p Яussiaп F 12:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call that painless. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drowning has no pain or cost at all, except transportation to a large body of water. "Best" is subjective. -THB 12:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping off the top of a tall building head first is quick, cheap, and painless. Not that I would recomend any form of suicide. T H L 13:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best and most painless way is 12-gauge shotgun in the mouth (pointed upwards, of course). Click. Bang. Dead. Not cheap unless you already own a shotgun though (EDIT: DON'T DO IT!!!!). --Kurt Shaped Box 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, shotguns are one of the worst ways to do it, since usually you've blown off your face but not your skull. Just see rotten.com once in a while. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians have refused to stock the suicide how-to book, Final Exit, not because they object to the contents, but because nobody ever seems to return the book. :-) StuRat 15:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Razors pain you.

Rivers are damp.

Acids stain you

and drugs cause cramp.

Guns aren't lawful.

Nooses give.

Gas smells awful.

You might as well live. - Dorothy Parker Durova 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably talk to a doctor, counselor, psychologist, friend, minister, teacher or crisis hotline about your feelings and what is going on in your life if it occurs to you to ask this question, (not that you are thinking about it). Wikipedia is not the best place to seek guidance with questions of this sort. Edison 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falling asleep in the snow would be painless, or so I've heard. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Monoxide poisoning. Just like going to sleep. 207.70.37.9 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Rich Farmbrough, 13:11 19 October 2006 (GMT).

Ecopave

Why is it that Ecopave Australia article page was deleted recently without it being given a proper opportunity to have it descussed in the same way as Eco-cemet did? Eco-cement article page is absolutely no different to Ecopave Australia so why were we dealt with differently?? Does this mean that Wikipedia follows its own guidelines when it comes to the deletion criteria, or is this a case of bias?

Why is it that Ecopave Australia article page was deleted ruthlessly without it being given a proper opportunity to have it discussed in the same way as Eco-cement did? Eco-cementt article page is absolutely no different to Ecopave Australia so why were we dealt with differently?? Does this mean that Wikipedia follows its own guidelines when it comes to the deletion criteria, or is this a case of bias? 144.137.45.71 10:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What article is this exactly? Ecopave Australia does not seem to have ever existed. You can check who deleted it and why at Special:log. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, our articles on Ecopave Australia were sitting fine for 2 weeks when 3 admins decided to attack it, see this link [3]

Oh, yeah, and the place to ask this would be Wikipedia:Help desk. The Reference desk is for asking about all things not Wikipedia-related, the Help desk is for help with the Wikipedia itself. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted by community consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecopave Australia. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, never mind me. I typo'd when I entered it into the search box, and did it properly up above. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks

Why is Starbucks so expensive in the UK? In the US, it only costs $1.80 for a coffee; whereas in the UK it costs a little under £3 ($5.60). Thanks, 81.131.56.242 11:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most things are more expensive in the UK than in the USA and most of continental Europe, in my experience. The answer usually given is that companies' fixed costs are higher in the UK than elsewhere. See Rip-Off Britain. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's simply because people are willing to pay that amount. It's the same with a lots of products, certainly books and electronic equipment are cheaper in the US than in the UK, houses and cars are cheaper on mainland Europe, etc.--Shantavira 12:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much competition in the UK ? Are there any other coffee house chains ? StuRat 13:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, plenty. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the right price for a cup of coffee. I'm serious! If the cup is overprice then noone would buy it. If it is underprice then lots of people would buy it. It has been priced just right. If you think it's overprice then you should not buy it. 211.28.178.86 13:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that the price is set by the market. I agree, but this begs the question of why the market sets a different price in the UK than it does elsewhere. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that the coffee Starbucks use comes from South America. This is the difference between a 3 or 4 day lorry journey to the US and a 2 month bulk freight to the UK. Plus, maybe the UK charges VAT on coffee and the US doesn't (I'm not sure on that one). Also, see Rip-Off Britain. La ï ka 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked to that article. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...silly me. La ï ka 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One day a Starbucks tall latte will replace the Economist's Big Mac Index. This measures comparitive purchasing power. Basically, if a commodity locally-made item (used to be a loaf of bread) costs way more than anywhere else in the world, then that currency is overvalued. However, I think Starbucks is a novelty in some parts of the world. Wait until it's on every corner! --Zeizmic 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be any taxes involved? In the United States, the only taxes on a cup of Starbucks coffee are the standard sales taxes, if any, of whatever state you happen to be in at the time. The UK, like the rest of Europe, does like to use taxation as a means of social control, after all (e.g. making gasoline/petrol cost ~$5 per gallon purely to prevent citizens from being able to afford to use much of it). --Aaron 19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If taxes on petrol were purely social control, they would be considered a monumental failure - we pay $6/gallon because in exchange for that if I suffer a heart attack tomorrow, an ambulance will be here within 8 minutes of being called to take me to whatever treatment I need, at the end of which I wouldn't have to pay anything. Incidentally, our sales tax, which is included in the price, is 17.5%. --Mnem e son 14:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transport costs should not be too much different between the UK and the US. In either case, it travels thousands of km by ship from South America, Africa, or Indonesia. There are no roads between the US and South America! If anything, the greater per-mile cost of truck (lorry) transport from a port in the US to an inland city 1000 km or more away would be greater than the transport cost to a UK location, which can't be much more than 200 km from a port. A couple of things that might contribute to the difference: 1) Wages are higher in the UK. In some parts of the US, you can pay low-skill people like Starbucks staff as little as $5.15 (£2.77) an hour (the minimum wage). Even in New York City, they are likely to make less than $10 an hour. 2) Commercial rents tend to be higher in the UK than in the US, with the exception of Manhattan. (Incidentally, I don't think that you will get much at Starbucks in New York City for $1.80.) 3. The pound sterling has been driven up relative to the dollar (and the euro) because sterling interest rates are higher. That means lots of international investors are selling dollars and buying sterling. So prices will look higher in terms of sterling than in dollars, even if their purchasing power is the same. Marco polo 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Minimum Wage in the UK is £5.35 ($10.00) an hour for 22 year olds and older, £4.45 ($8.32) for 18-21 year olds. No doubt this is a partial explanation. -- Arwel (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US price, did you include tip you're supposed to give? And the tax that for some weird reason is usually not included in the listed price in the US? DirkvdM 06:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I walk into a Starbucks and order a paper cup filled with coffee from someone standing behind the counter, I'm supposed to tip them? –RHolton ≡– 11:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I thought that in the US you were supposed to tip just about everyone because they are underpaid. I got several nasty looks in various places and assmuned that was the reason. DirkvdM 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in the US most of my life, and the general rule about tipping is that you are expected to tip for table service (i.e. if there is a waiter or waitress) but not for counter service. People who work at counters will often have a jar for tips, but tipping at counters is completely optional, whereas at tables you are expected to tip unless there is a grave failure of service. People debate whether to tip 15% or 20% at tables. (I tip 20%.) Most waiters and waitresses earn most of their pay from tips, and the difference between 15% and 20% can be the difference between meager pay and decent pay. Marco polo 00:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic, but I heard a word expert the other day on BBC Radio. He was saying that he hates Starbucks (and their ilk) for making the word "grande" mean average size. --Dweller 11:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be to do with the Short cappucino? I'm not sure about the US, but Starbucks UK have a 'secret' short cappucino which is not only cheaper, but tastes better (if you like your coffee strongish).[4] Possibly, in the US, the Short is more widely advertised (could someone verify this, please). La ï ka 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I didn't know about that! No, he meant that a "grande" coffee is actually just average sized, compared to what you'd make for yourself in your kitchen. They're kidding you that it's large. --Dweller 10:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

news

any news on the court case of fred boyle australia

check google news. Jon513 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'edit' tag

Is it my imagination, or does the 'edit' box/tag/thingy keep moving from the right to the left of the page and then back again?--Light current 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was doing this a couple days ago. I went on IRC for the express purpose of finding out, and apparently it was some sideffect of other changes someone was doing to the Mediawiki software stuffs. The Right-to-left projects all had their edit links switched to the right (the wrong side for them) after this was "fixed", so I'd speculate that you might have seen them in the process of fixing that. Or not. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, why the heck, then, do some of the special graphics (like the category bar) sometimes move upward in animation while I view the bottom of the page? E Liquere 03:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how to open up a restaraunt

i would like to know how to open up a restaraunt. as in the steps involved and things to do before once can open up a cafe or restaraunt. as well as how to run one.

If you buy into a franchise, then it's far easier (although potentially more expensive). If you don't have any experience running a restaurant, this would likely give you the best chance of success. The company you buy the franchise from will do a number of things for you, possibly including the following:

Scout out a good location for the restaurant.

Construct the building and furnish it with their standard decor.

Provide food in a form suitable for cooking.

Provide you with a menu and cooking instructions for each item.

Provide advertising.

Provide training for employees and management.

Why do they do all this ? For money, of course. They will want a substantial up front payment (possibly in the millions) and may want a yearly cut of the profits, as well. If you don't have the funds for this, I suggest you start small, like a food kiosk in a mall. StuRat 15:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work in one first,this should either give you some idea or put you off completely.I'm being serious.(82.138.214.1 16:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that it would be foolish to try to open a restaurant without having worked in one so that you know what is involved. Assuming that you have worked in a restaurant, and you don't want to purchase a franchise, then you need to plan out your marketing strategy. A big part of that is location and decor. Think about who your customers will be and what will appeal to their taste aesthetically. Where are your customers geographically? Do they get around by taxi, on foot and by city transit, or by private car? The first answer calls for an upscale shopping district. The first two answers call for a location on a major commercial street with lots of foot traffic. The last answer calls for a location with parking on a major suburban street or highway. Once you have your concept, you need to find a suitable location through a (real) estate agent, negotiate a lease, and purchase all of the necessary kitchen equipment and tableware. Depending on where you are located, you may need to obtain a number of permits from your municipal and/or state/provincial government. You will then need to renovate the location with the appropriate decor. Part of the renovation should be an attractive exterior that will get noticed from the street, or signage if you are set back from a suburban street behind a parking lot. You need to hire a skilled kitchen staff, crucially a chef, who can present the kind of food that your clientele will want. You will also need to hire waitstaff who present the right image. Finally, you need to market your restaurant. You might want to hire a designer to work with your chef on a menu. You should then send copies of the menu and an announcement of the restaurant's opening to reviewers from local print, online, and perhaps broadcast media. You might try offering discount coupons, either to passers-by, or along with an advertisement in a local media outlet, to bring in new customers at the beginning. Then you have to hope that your plan was successful and that you draw new customers by word of mouth. Marco polo 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A restaurant is a very tricky business. Other alternatives for the inexperienced are to buy an existing restaurant or to become an investor in a restaurant. Durova 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no more ghosts? ASAP Please

what song has this in it's lyrics? Thanks Heynow07 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these? http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=lyrics+%22no+more+ghosts%22&btnG=Search&meta= Benbread 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My kitten is sick

I don't think it is feline distemper, because the symptoms aren't there. The kitten started with "yucky" eyes, which eventually dried the eyes closed. Now that I can get a hold of this kitten (mama is wild!), I washed the eyes enough to get them open and put in some penicillin eye ointment. Other than being "goopy" in the eyes--and a bit underfed and underwatered from lack of sight--the kitten seems fine. I'd like to know what this might be so I can deal with it better. Any recommendations for specific medication and/or treatment would also be welcome. Thank you so much! KT

The best advice anyone here can give you would be to take her to a vet. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yucky eyes? Get more fresh air into the house, or allow your kitten some time outside. If you feel this would be dangerous, so is keeping your cat inside for months on end. You might not notice the steady, gradual decline of an indoor-only cat, like you would notice a cat torn apart by panthers, but it's the same effect regardless: bad.

Fresh air will cure all sorts of maladies, but most immediately, things like eye, nose, mouth, gum, throat, lung, and skin problems.

If you buy cat food for your cat, you may want to give it some human food too. Things like stir-fry chicken, beef, even nice soft bread. Cats can and will eat almost anything a human eats, if it's good food of course.

If you want to make sure your cat lives longer than you, give it fresh-from-the-restaurant sushi. Cats just love fresh, raw, salmon, crab, virtually anything made by a Japanese man. Chris 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have to disagree with almost everything Chris has said.See if you have a local charity which can deal with what appears to be a feral cat.(82.138.214.1 16:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Likewise, the first advice is best: take the kitten to a vet. Durova 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely go with the vet visit. A young animal may have worms, fleas, ear mites, and any number of other problems. Edison 18:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we must keep the vets in business. If pets don't continually get sick, vets have no money coming in, then we'll have horribly sick vets instead of horribly sick kitties. Yes, disregard all my advice. Don't let your cats get a breath of fresh air. Feed them canned food, exclusively. Cats exist purely for your amusement, and to filter your air. God bless America! Chris 19:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human food will make animals quite fat, it is not formulated for their bodies but instead for fat human bodies. Not all animal foods are equal of course (this is one area where going for a higher quality and thus usually expensive product is often a good idea) but a well-formulated animal food is much better for pets than are human scraps. Humans are allowed to make awful choices about food and nutrition when it comes to their own bodies but they shouldn't force their own lack of knowledge about nutrition onto their animals. And I am not sure that "fresh air" as the cure-all is really a claim that needs addressing. Kittens' eyes don't get goopy to the point of drying shut because of a lack of "fresh air". --Fastfission 23:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I really don't like that sarcastic reply. The mortality rate among kittens is rather high and this animal is in poor health. While fresh air is generally good it's also questionable advice to put a sick juvenile animal outdoors where it might contract an additional illness or get attacked by another animal. A less pressing priority is that cats and humans do have different dietary needs. Dry food is healthier for a cat's teeth than canned food, but the cheap dry cat food can cause kidney stones in male cats. Cats also develop their tastes in food during the first six months of life. So one decision each owner needs to make is what foods to introduce their kitten to: is it really kindness to give them human foods as treats when it means they'll either have a poor diet or smell things they want but rarely get to eat? One solution is to keep two or three different mid-priced dry foods and serve a different one each day for variety, occasionally offering treats in the form of human-quality meats or fish that aren't regular items on the household's human menu. First and foremost, have a licensed professional look at the kitten. This might be an eye infection that could cause permanent vision damage if it remains untreated. Durova 02:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to contact David Gilmour of Pink floyd?

Please help,

I need your help in finding/writing to David Gilmour of Pink Floyd. I'm not happy with him at all at this point, you will have to see the DVD "Pulse" in the tune "Money" where he is singing and when it comes to the part about buying a Lear Jet he steps back away from the Mic and says to the other band members "Maybe two" with a shit eaten grin on his face. I don't know why but it has upset me with him more than I can stand and I just need to let him know for some reason.

Gary

Well, you could try contacting him via his website, but the chances of a megastar like him reading emails sent to a website are very slim. Especially if it's the kind of message you outline, which sounds like it would be abusive. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 19:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I pointed out that he sold a house of his and gave the proceeds to charity? I've been a Floyd fan most of my life and have no problem with the guys enjoying their money since they've probably given away more money to charity than many other celebs. They don't always make a big deal about it but they do give a lot away. Dismas|^(talk) 06:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

write the letter but don't send it. Jon513 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me it sounds like he is just kidding around. He might not even have been serious. And how long ago was this? --Filll 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm,irony dude!(hotclaws**== 14:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

A little confused?

I sorry for being so idnorent but I don't understand he reason for open editing. I was confused when I stubbled on your site and I hit edit just wondering what would happen. I typed some random useless words and you posted it. I quikly relized what I did and delated it. But my question to you is. How do you guys control all this information? Can't any one just delate everything or post anything? Maybe I still don't understand.

Try reading about Wikipedia.

Long story short, the thing that makes Wikipedia Wikipedia is the fact than anyone can edit it. If it wasn't editable, it would be just another boring encyclopedia that, first and foremost, rich old white men make money off of.

Also, an article is only as important as how many people read it. So, the more people who read an article, the faster any garbage is spotted, and the faster it gets fixed. Wikipedia is self-healing. Chris 19:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich old white men, a bit racially vindictive isnt it, do coloured people prefer not to invest in information technology? Philc _T^E_C^I 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I am both white and male, I find it appropriate to use that particular epithet. Much like black individuals are allowed to use the n-word.

As to your question... who knows. Chris 22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And like in that case many from that racial group still find it deeply offensive. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is because more people associate rich old white men with information technology investing. The sentence wouldn't make sense if "rich old white men" was replaced with "young black city-dwellers" or "Italians nuns". Hyenaste ^(tell) 23:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's based on fact. Of course encyclopedias can be owned owned by poor young blacks, but how many are? Why 'white'? Well the key word is 'rich'. Look around the world and see who have more money, whites or blacks. Do we have an article on this? Income by race? Another title perchance? DirkvdM 06:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blacks are poorer on a global scale, but only because they have a majority of the population in some of the poorest countries, there is no reason why blacks in the west should be percieved as any poorer. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't know this was specifically about the west. Secondly, I didn't know blacks were suposed to be percieved as not being poorer. Are you suggesting they actually aren't any poorer? Which west are you talking about then? DirkvdM 19:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brochure Templates

Does anyone know where I can find some good brochure templates at? I just need them to look good, as I will provide all of the content. I want complete control over it, not like at my brochure maker where one cannot edit it freely. Any help to find some brochure templates would be greatly appreciated. A quick Google search didn't weild any usable results. --205.213.6.3 20:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most such templates are associated with a particular program, like MSWord, MSPublisher, PageMaker, etc. Do you have any of those? Anchoress 01:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry about that. Microsoft Word and/or Open Office.org templates would be very useful and appreciated. Like I said earlier, I just need the template to be artsy or just to look good. I will supply the content and a few of the pictures. --71.98.27.234 02:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you can also visit the online brochure maker as an alternative. almost exactly the same as the brochure template However the difference we can make and print brochures directly

Reccomendations

Quick! Reccomend comics/anime/manga that are based in actual mythology (not one made up for the purposes of the comic/anime/manga)! 64.198.112.210 20:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Comics has a series called "Thor," based on the Norse god of thunder. — Michael J 00:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Chitra Katha for a non-Western example.---Sluzzelin 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyuki (and, to a much much lesser extent, Dragonball) is based off the legend of the Journey to the West. Confusing Manifestation 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon? :)

God or god

Should the word 'god' when used of the christian deity have a capital 'G' or is it acceptable to simply write 'the christian god'? And surely there should be a set standard across all articles? The Crying Orc 22:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual rule for capitalization in English is that proper nouns, or names, get capitalized, while common nouns do not. In the phrase you quote above, "the Christian god," "Christian" should be capitalized, because adjectives derived from proper nouns, such as "Christ," are usually capitalized. However, "god" should not be capitalized, because the phrase is referring to one of many possible gods, the Christian god. "God" should be capitalized when it is used as the name of the Christian god. For example, "They prayed to God." But, "They prayed to the Christian god." Another example might be, "They prayed to the Roman god of the seas." When referring to that god by name, we capitalize: "They prayed to Neptune." So when the word is referring to a god as a type of thing ("the Christian god"), it is not capitalized. When the word is referring to the Jewish or Christian god by name, it is capitalized. Here is another example, which is oddly worded, but makes use of these principles: "They prayed to the Christian god, God." Marco polo 22:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well more we don't say his name. When you are the only example of a type do you need a particular name as well? Rmhermen 00:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marco is right. This question was asked before, and editors discussed the confusion that results from having a god named God. I remind myself that there's a guy named Guy, and a god named God. Hyenaste ^(tell) 23:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not acceptable either way. You must write the common noun as "g-d" and the proper name as "G-d" or you will incur His holy wrath and spend the rest of your life in eternal torment. JIP | Talk 07:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone else is in doubt, JIP was joking. --Dweller 12:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird looking dog

My friend has this dog that he got from a foster home service thing and he doesn't know what type of breed it is. It looks more like a fox than anything and it is black and has a bushy tail, pointed ears, yellow circles around its eyes and it usually acts mildy retarded. It will charge people but stop short and then start barking at them. Anyone know what kind of dog this is? T REX_speak 23:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Schipperke or a Lapinporokoira, or perhaps a Finnish Lapphund? Then again it could be a black Spitz or a mongrel.---Sluzzelin 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like the Schipperke but it had shorter hair. T REX_speak 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light blue uniforms

Why baseball teams like Toronto Blue Jays and Kansas City Royals had to wear light blue uniforms during the 80s and what was for? Was it for road or home games?

Those were their road uniforms. Adam Bishop 03:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And for the love of fluffy little kittens ,why did the Astros wear THAT uniform in the early 80s(hotclaws**== 14:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Terrorists

Why does Al-Quaeda attack USA? If it's because they hate USA, then why do they hate USA. Jamesino 23:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Al-Quaeda, which discusses this in some detail. Primarily, they want foriegners to stop interfering, as they see it, in Muslim land and Muslim affairs. --Robert Merkel 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how did it all start? Jamesino 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how far back you want to go. Some Islamists argue that it goes back to Christian aggression in the First Crusade, but this is probably not accurate. Relations between the Christian powers of Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire, which dominated the Muslim Middle East, were fairly peaceful by the 1800s. After the Ottoman Empire joined Germany and Austria-Hungary as one of the Central Powers in World War I, however, the victorious Allied Powers, France and Britain, occupied mainly Muslim Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia (Iraq), and imposed mandates, a form of colonial domination, in those territories, which lasted for more than 20 years.

The British encouraged Jewish immigration into Palestine under the Balfour Declaration of 1917. When European Jews sought refuge in British Palestine after the Holocaust and World War II, they founded the state of Israel on territory that many Muslim Arabs felt had been taken from them. This remains a main source of grievances for Islamists, in part because Israel controls Muslim holy places in Jerusalem, the third-holiest Muslim city, and the Arab-Israeli conflict continues to this day. Many Muslims, not just Islamists, resent U.S. support for Israel, particularly in the context of Israel's occupation or domination of the mainly Muslim West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israeli's establishment of settlements in the West Bank, some of them on land confiscated from Muslim Arabs, and Israel's perceived denial of the rights of Arabs in these territories. Despite these Israeli policies, Israel is by far the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, receiving at least $3 billion per year from the United States. (See Israel-United States relations.)

After World War II, Western nations and oil corporations attempted to maintain control of Middle Eastern petroleum resources. This was probably one motivation for the British- and US-backed coup that toppled the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. During the same period, western powers formed alliances with the House of Saud, the royal family that rules Saudi Arabia, in return for access to its vast oil reserves. Within Saudi Arabia are the two holiest cities of Islam, Medina and Mecca, which all Muslims face when they pray, and which all Muslims are supposed to visit on a pilgrimage if they can. During the Gulf War, U.S. and other western troops were allowed to set up bases in Saudi Arabia. Some Islamists considered this a violation of the sanctity of the Muslim holy land.

In 2001, al-Qaeda said that it had attacked the United States in effort to force it to give up its military deployments in the Middle East and its support for Israel. Since 2001, al-Qaeda and other Islamists have also objected to the bloody U.S. campaigns in mainly Muslim Afghanistan and Iraq.

Marco polo 01:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every story has at least 2 sides. Marco Polo just outlined Western interference in Muslim countries in the last century. Muslims like to complain as well of the 4 relatively brief expeditions (crusades) to free a small area from Muslim conquest about 9 centuries ago. What they don't like to be reminded of is that the other 12 centuries of Islam have been characterized by nearly continuous attempts to conquer their neighbors, including multiple bloody invasions of Europe that stopped only when Europe became stronger. Is there a single country that was converted to Islam peacefully rather than at the point of a sword? Is there a single Islamic country that actually grants full freedom of religion and first-class citizen status to people of other religions? Has there ever been an Islamic country that was stronger than its neighbors but left them alone? What other religion was started by a "prophet" (pox buh) who led armies to slaughter those who resisted? It is hard to listen to Muslim complaints about the crusades or about their "peaceful" religion without being amazed at their hypocritical historical ignorance. Dalembert 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Marco gave the reasons that al-Qaeda gives, I don't believe that is the true reason. They really wanted publicity to draw more recruits, and attacking the "big dog" (the only remaining superpower) is the way to get this publicity. If they had instead attacked Madagascar, there wouldn't have been much publicity at all. StuRat 04:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But to draw recruits for what? That's basically the question asked here. DirkvdM 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Dalembert, has there ever been a country that was significantly stronger than its neighbours but left them alone? Countries tend to bully each other around if they can. If this leads to an invasion then the locals tend to use whatever means they have to fight back. Since this is not an organised regular army and the methods are by necessity unorthodox, they're called terrorists (not because they spread terror, because orthodox organised regular armies do that too, just to a higher degree and more effectively). At the moment the top dog and therefore big bully is the USA. So it meddles in the affairs of other countries (in today's globalised world no longer just neighbouring countries). So people in those countries use whatever means they have to fight back, as they always have. If we compare the US to the toppest dog the world has ever seen, one might see Al Qaeda as today's equivalent of the Germanic hordes that sacked the Roman Empire. It's always different and yet always the same. The big difference here is that Al Qaeda is nowhere near as effective, but then revolts rarely are (so that bit is the same). But it's also true that every empire in the history of mankind has crumbled, usually within a few centuries. How old is the US? :) DirkvdM 06:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been a country that was significantly stronger than its neighbours but left them alone? Sure. The US has left Canada alone since the War of 1812, at which point Canada wasn't yet a country, but rather a British colony. StuRat 12:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it was British. Are you suggesting the US was significantly stronger than Britain? DirkvdM 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just the opposite, the British were stronger at the time (although their ability to project that power into North America was limited). So, this is an example of a more powerful country (USA) never bothering a less powerful neighbor (Canada). The war of 1812 isn't applicable to this example for the reasons given. StuRat 21:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? If the US wasn't significantly stronger, then this doesn't apply. I often disagree with you, but usually you make sense, logically speaking. This time you don't. DirkvdM 06:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will explain it slowly, just for you:

You asked, Has there ever been a country that was significantly stronger than it's neighbors but left them alone?

I responded that yes, there were.

I offered the case of the US being significantly stronger than Canada (the country), but never bothering them, as an example.

I anticipated that somebody with a weak grasp of history would then say, "The US did too attack Canada, in the War of 1812 !".

Rather than wait for this remark, I explained, in advance, that the War of 1812 does not apply, because, at the time, the country of Canada did not exist, even though the British possessions north of the US were called Canada.

StuRat 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To which I replied that, therefore, a war with Canada would have been a war with Britain, which was no significantly weaker opponent. So your counterargument doesn't apply. There was no case of a weaker neighbour. Sorry, I don't know how to say that any slower. :) DirkvdM 19:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geez ! I am NOT talking about Canada back when it was a province of England, I am talking about Canada AFTER they gained independence. Can't you understand that ? At that point they were a weaker nation than the US, and yet the US did not attack them. Now what part of that can't you understand ? StuRat 04:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said the British possessions north of the US were called Canada. I concluded from that that they were Canada. An understandable misunderstanding, I'd say. I still don't get it, though, but can't be bothered either. :) DirkvdM 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nations are more warlike than peaceful doesn't mean that there can't be especially violent or agressive nations. And islam has proven time and again to be fundamentally a violent religion, which fuels (or is fueled by?) dangerous islamic governments --⁪froth^{T C} 05:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard a speech by a US president, calling the nation to war (they tend to do that a lot), in which they didn't refer to God? And talking about terrorism, the most famous (for a reason) terrorist group was the IRA, with a 'legal branch' in politics. Religion suck, absolutely. Like I said below, it is often used as an excuse for warfare. But don't limit that insight to islam. DirkvdM 06:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You won't here things like "we must kill these enemies of God", like you will from radical Muslims. StuRat 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of evil was done in the name of Christianity during the crusades or whatever but a lot of evil is being done in the name of Islam today. More than any other religion right now (though the satanists are trying their best!) --⁪froth^{T C} 14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the US is doing most of the evil, and God is used as a standard in speeches about plans to do that evil. Of course the first bit has about as many opponents as it has supporters. DirkvdM 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US is doing most of the evil in the world ? Muslims are actively engaged in genocide against blacks in Darfur and are causing the vast majority of the deaths in Iraq. StuRat 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which the US have nothing to do with, of course. Just like Vietnam wa largely a matter between the Vietnamese and therefore nothing to do with the US. They just happened to be there. Just like in just about any country in the world where shit happens. I sometimes get the impression that most dictators in the world were installed by the US. Such as Saddam Hussein. He got so much support from the US that he was genuinely surprised that he couldn't get away with invading Kuwait. DirkvdM 19:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US has only SORT OF left Canada alone. The US has military bases all over Canada. And there was that great US Presidential campaign slogan of a few years back "Fifty Four Fourty or Fight"--Filll 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon boundary dispute was settled peacefully with a compromise, and that was before Canada was an independent nation, in any case. StuRat 04:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might also mention a couple of other reasons why the Islamists are upset with the US. The Islamists are upset with western culture which is not particularly respectful of Muslim values (such as Bay Watch) or for that matter even aware of Muslim values. Western media and influences pervade the world and these corrupt the youth and erode the foundation that Sharia law and Muslim morals and ethics and traditions have laid for Muslim society. I also understand that some of the more radical beliefs of the Islamists are only a couple of centuries old, such as the prohibitions against the depiction of the prophet or other people or even animals. There are many korans in museums that were commissioned and have beaUtiful paintings and artwork in them. --Filll 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Because they hate our freedom." But wait: doesn't that mean they would be attacking Sweden too? Never mind.Edison 15:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they dislike Sweden too, but how much impact on their world does Sweden have and represent?--Filll 15:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, there's only three reasons to fight: food, mates, and territory. The ideological trappings are purely symptomatic of underlying scarcities of food, mates, and territory. -- Chris 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make that money and territory, with religion often trown in as an excuse or to mobilise people. US cultural influence can be easily blocked if a country wishes so. US military presence is a bit harder, and that is what so-called 'muslim terrorism' is all about. Territory. Their own teritory. So they returned the favour 5 years ago. DirkvdM 19:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make sure we all understand what you just said, Dirk. The murder by al quaida of thousands of Americans going about their own business in their own city was justified because the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait allowed US troops to have bases to protect them from Iraq and Iran? That is some sort of moral equivalence? That is a justification for mass murder? That has to be one of the most contemptible opinions expressed here. Ever. You wouldn't dare say that face to face with most of us, you moral jackass, you contemptible excuse for civilized person. If your opinion is widely held in the Netherlands, you deserve the Muslims and you are welcome to them. Just don't express any disagreeable opinions to them: unlike the barbaric Americans you hate so much, they are likely to kill you for them. Dalembert 03:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His distasteful arguments spoke for themselves, now you've gone and ad hominemed him and made yourself seem the fool. It's like insulting the gay director of Springtime for Hitler. No offense dirk :p --⁪froth^{T C} 05:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put any hate into my mouth. I hate US politics, not the people. And the US forces I referred to were in Iraq, not Saudi Arabia. DirkvdM 06:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy - am I glad that I am about to enter my 60's next year. I can see humanity in all its variety and glory imploding sooner rather than later; when in fact, there is an abundance of land, food, sexual partners, technology and freedom of speech/religion, fresh water, etc., etc. to go around everyone several times over. To me, it proves that God, Allah, Jahweh, Buddha, etc., has a great sense of humour - and all his children - us - are just the comedians. I am looking forward to the great belly laugh in the sky when my time comes; plus of course the camels and the virgins. The ladies of Manhatten and Morningside? Well Dahling, they will be doing their Pilates Classes when Armageddon comes so they will be too pre-occupied. pbuh.

I think Dirkvdm made a good point. Why attack him? One of the stated reasons for attacking the US is that it has troops stationed on "sacred" soil. It might be a sort of a ridiculous reason, but the leaders who invited and/or allowed the US to station troops there are also strongly disliked by the same people that object to the US presence. Why should his stating that be controversial? After all, the Islamists have said it over and over, if I recall.--Filll 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana

Generally, if I smoke one regular sized joint, will I notice any severe long-term effects? eg. loss of intelligence, loss of memory, stupidity? Assuming as well, I am in a country where marijuana smoking is legal and I have never smoken it before. Jamesino 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a single one for your entire lifetime? In that case: no, it's extremely unlikely that you will notice any severe longterm effects (unless you choose to go motorcycle racing or rock-climbing that one time you're baked e.g.). Or do you mean one regular sized joint per week, per day, per hour? In the last case I'd be more careful with my answer. Though you might not, your environment may in fact notice some changes. Finally, to quote Paracelsus, "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." If you're a novice smoking with veterans, keep in mind that they, unlike you, have probably built up a considerable tolerance toward the weed. ---Sluzzelin 01:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sluzzelin that you are very unlikely to have any bad long-term effects if you smoke a single joint, as long as you don't try to drive or do anything requiring physical coordination while you are under its effect. However, I would say more clearly that smoking joints habitually over a period of years can have severe, long-term harmful effects. If you are considering more than a single use, you might want to check out Health issues and the effects of cannabis. Marco polo 01:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right -- one joint isn't going to harm you (unless you drive while smoking it or something). But why bother? Pot isn't addictive, but if you do like it, then you might want to try it again, and next thing you know, you're spending your hard-earned savings on dime bags and stinking up your apartment building. -- Mwalcoff 01:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it sound ambiguous, but I agree with Marco. More importantly, so does science. Incidentally, for almost ten years I smoked more than one regular sized joint a day on average, and, though I quit another ten years ago, my brain still feels sticky. I have always had trouble concentrating, but this stickiness is a different sensory/cognitive quality I don't seem to be able to shake off completely and I would rather do without. But this is just one individual's experience; I also know two medical doctors who smoke several joints a week and always appear lucid, alert, and witty and whose careers are thriving. As Marco said, regular consumption can (but possibly needn't) have undesired long-term effects. ---Sluzzelin 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o_o hopefully not surgeons --⁪froth^{T C} 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there will be no long-term effects; the "problems" you cite will be short-term. If you're only going to smoke one joint in your life, make it a big fat one and really enjoy it. -THB 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weed is a bit weird. It's not like other drugs. Of course all drugs are not like other drugs, but weed is really different. For one, tolerance can oddly work the other way around. The first tiem I smoked it was about a gramme of hasjisj. Now I smoke a gramme of marijuana (much less potent) per week. The effects also differ strongly from one person to the next. And I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true for the long term effects. But if you smoke only one joint, any effects will be negligible. The biggest effect will be having had a completely different experience, that may change your view of reality (not quite the Doors of perception, but something along those lines). There's a HUGE difference between trying something and making it a habit. Weed isn't physically addictive, but anything that is nice is potentially mentally addictive. If you mean smoking one joint per day or so, then it becomes very relevant how potent the weed is, how much of it you put in the joint (do you mix it with tobacco?) and how big the joint is. And of course whether you share it with others. If you smoke a big pure joint of Dutch quality weed per day I wouldn't be surprised if there were long term effects. In the Netherlands there is now talk of branding some Dutch weed as a hard drug because it is so incredibly potent. But, as was pointed out before, the real difference is not between hard drugs and soft drugs, but between hard use and soft use. DirkvdM 07:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING! Not everyone is o-kay with weed,I have a huge paranoid reaction to it( and I know this is unusual but not unknown) and have to be careful of passive smoking round dope smokers.(hotclaws**== 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Go ahead and smoke all the pot you want; you may well experience memory loss, but it need not be permanent if you grow and evolve out of habitual drug use. -- Chris 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]