Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 August 31

What is a warezgroup?
What is a warezgroup? Please respond on my talk page: 100110100, thanks!68.148.165.213 00:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks too new for WP. Tried Googling?--Light current 01:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See warez, and it's actually too old for Wikipedia. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  13:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * warez have been around for a long time -and are exploding in popularity, much to the behest of private warez groups- but it's hardly TOO old for wp --Froth 03:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By "too old" I was merely implying that had the warez seen been as big as it was 5 or 10 years ago, the article count for "warez" related stuff would be much larger than it is. In a sense, "warez" are bigger now than they ever were before, but software piracy is no longer really called that (hence the guy didn't know what it meant) probably due to the fact that it's so much easier nowadays to pirate software. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  14:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * More accessable perhaps, but hardly easier. Back in the day, it was easy as melting a snowball in a furnace to copy a game, but it was a titanic challenge to distribute software .. the public internet was so slow that it was actually faster (and cheaper) to mail physical media than it was to download. A lot of the p2p and dcc and that kind of stuff was originally developed to facilitate reasonable transfer time. Nowadays services like rapidshare make it possible to download files at 4000kbps on a standard cable modem setup (at least mine anyway, and mine is capped) and the real challenge is breaking the software copy protection included in the games. Granted, some games like Oblivion are rediculously easy to crack, requiring at most a few dozen byte CD key and an easily-available "no-cd" executable, but others that include for example the infamous Starforce copy protection (which goes to indesputably absurd lengths to secure its software against pirates) are almost impossible to crack and require weeks or months of concentrated effort by an entire team of skilled pirates. Other games like MMOs or Counter-Strike Source (on non cracked servers) are impossible to crack, or in the case of Counter-Strike, don't stay cracked for long. --Froth 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

spectator sport
What is the biggest spectator sport in the world?


 * Biggest in what sense? --Kiltman67 03:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps List of sports attendance figures would help you. Dismas|(talk) 04:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

what sport do more people watch auto raceing, baseball, football or anyother?

--Light current 04:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC) where would i look i've been working on this for days


 * Wow, the Bundesliga and FA cup alone are almost as 'big' as American Football as a whole. Considering the population of the USA is 5 resp 4 times as big as those of Germany and the UK, that's quite impressive. I wonder if the list is complete enough to add up the figures to give an impression of worldwide attendances per sport. So you could do that and then add a table (while you're at it). But first ask at the talk page. DirkvdM 08:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the talk page? I looked at the discussion page and didn't know if that was it. Somewhere in advertising they know this but where? Thank you!


 * Ah yes, that is a bit confusing. Talk page indeed means discussion page. I don't know what you mean by the advertising thing. DirkvdM 07:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Finance terms?
Is there a difference in meaning for these terms: invoice, promissory note, demand note? Kocfm

--Light current 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Pokey (game)
There is a game I have played that was locally called "Pokey". I couldn't find an article on Wikipedia about it, so I thought maybe I had the wrong name. The game involves two people holding hands like an arm wrestle, but with the index finger extended, and standing instead of sitting. To win, you must poke the other person, but you are not allowed to touch them except with your one hand. Can anybody tell me the game's name if it is not pokey, and show me a wikipedia article if there is one? Thank you. --216.164.200.120 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I used to play a game called "pokey" with a woman friend of mine, but it was played entirely differently, as I recall. StuRat 10:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you didnt need to extend your index finger in your version?--Light current 12:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Get a LiFE, people. As for your question, there are many "locally played games" that exist, including pat-a-cake, rock, paper, scissors and arm wrestling that have articles. Maybe this is your chance to make your own! See the article on hand games for details. --JDitto 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Most children fathered
Who is the man who fathered the most children and how many children did they father? I searched on google but I found nothing. I would be very grateful if you could help. --216.164.200.120 04:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Genghis Khan is probably well up in the ranks. See Descent from Genghis Khan. I don't know if anyone has an estimated number of children he sired, and it's just as possible that it was one or more of his sons, anyway.


 * For more recent men, would you count sperm donors?-gadfium 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think some of the men in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have 60 or 70 children. Anchoress 05:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would count sperm donors if it is verifiable that a child was actually produced of the man's semen. --216.164.200.120 05:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC) The greatest number I have found is from Ismail Ibn Sharif, but it doesn't give a precise number and I have no way of knowing if there are other men who have fathered more children. --216.164.200.120 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. The questioner specifically said 'fathered', not conceived. Fathered implied he brought the child up too. - 131.211.210.11 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea but it's not your question, pal.

Nothing stated about the number of children, but according to the KJV (1 Kings 11:3) , Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Most of those were probably political marriages, but if he fathered only one child by each...  we're talking a lot of children. SWAdair 07:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's only about fathering and not concieveiving, then what about father Theresa? DirkvdM 08:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mike Yurosek is supposedly the father of the baby carrot he probably has a lot of crunchy offspring. See List of people known as father or mother of something. MeltBanana  13:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Cross (card game)
In 2000, I toured northern Romania and was introduced to a card popular with the locals. It seemed similar to Euchre, but with several modifications. It was played using only 10-J-Q-K-A cards, and the locals called it "Cross". Is anybody familiar with this game? Could you point me toward an english resource that summarizes the rules of play? Thank you! 68.183.218.232 04:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Divorce put on "Reserve"
What exactly does it mean when your divorce decree is put "on reserve"?
 * Are you referring to a "decree nisi"? JackofOz 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! Nise one!--Light current 11:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Song
There is a song and the lyrics go: Where do you go to my lovley? when you're alone in your bed. Can any one tell me who it was by? Thanks
 * That would be Where Do You Go To (My Lovely) by Peter Sarstedt. Great song, by the way. --Richardrj talkemail 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Supernova
Hiya, recently in the news they were saying that some scientists have been able to observe a sun die 40 000 light years away, for the first time, and it was watched over 4 days, can any one tell me where i can see a video of this.


 * At that distance I suspect all you would see is a bright dot that slowly fades over 4 days. Not exactly my idea of a fun video to watch.  Does anyone have a video of paint drying ? StuRat 10:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I got one of those. wanna borrow?--Light current 11:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Stu, you'd see a great deal more than "just fades" if it's a supernova. Consider that the supernova that created the Crab Nebula was most likely visible during daylight hours at its peak.  Anyway, to answer the original question, here's a story about the supernova, including an animation.  Hit Google News and search "supernova" and you'll find plenty more references. &mdash; Lomn | Talk 13:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That one is 440 million light years away, and at that distance, all you see is a slightly brighter (and bluer) dot, as shown in the pics. The artist illustrations may be cool, but they didn't need any actual event to draw that, now did they ?  The reason the Crab Nebula looks interesting is that it's much closer (6,300 light years) and much older (as viewed from Earth).  Thus, it's had almost 1000 years to form the current nebula.  If we wait 1000 years and then move to within 6,300 light years of this new supernova, then it will look interesting, too.  Until then, it's just a boring dot.  StuRat 13:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a difference between an actual supernova and the remains of an old one. The old one looks interresting but can only be seen from relatively nearby. The actual supernova is just a distant explosion. If it were as nearby as the interresting looking old ones we might be in a spot of trouble. This, however, rarely happens. Supernovas are rather rare occurrances. But over the last 15 or so billion years some have occurred relatively near to us, so we still get to see some remainders. Come to think of it, it must have taken a bit of a leap of the mind to see the connection between the two. DirkvdM 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Crab Nebula blew up near us in 1054 AD. It was bright enough to see easily with the naked eye, but didn't cause any serious problems on Earth. StuRat 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for the director's cut. Howard Train 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

MISPAH
I saw the letters M.I.S.P.A.H. on a tombstone and believe they stand for something (maybe a quotation) but have had no success when I put the letters into the search bit of Wikipedia.

Can you help? I would be most grateful.

Margaret Dawkins


 * Perhaps this google search is helpful. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll hazard a guess: "Mission Impossible: Stoned Pedestrian Avoiding Highway". :-) StuRat 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the death was due to a mishap, but the mason couldnt spell (likr me)--Light current 13:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds jewish to me. DirkvdM 07:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Mizpah, particularly the section entitled "Emotion": Mizpah is an emotional bond between people who are separated (either physically or by death). Mizpah jewellery is worn to signify this bond and the word "mizpah" can often be found on headstones in cemeteries and on other memorials. Tonywalton | Talk 11:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fat people
As they use more oxygen, produce more CO2, burden the health service, and make life difficult for others, should they pay more taxes?--Light current 11:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of taxes on health and my life is not made more difficult in the slightest by overweight or obese people. (Let's keep it neutral, okay?) There's also a difference by people who choose to live unhealthily and those who have a genetic disposition to be heavy. Making the first pay more taxes is unfair because it gives the government something they don't deserve and making the other pay more taxes is simply discrimination. - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ive not heard of the 'genetic' disposition. I thought it was overeating!--Light current 12:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall the spoof science show Look Around You mentioning 'on the spot fines for obesity'. Hammer Raccoon 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many forms of taxation like taxes on cigarretes, alcohol, petrol, all designed to minimise consumption and maximise revenue. Are these taxes discriminating to smokers, drinkers and drivers? Higher taxes on fatteneing (and/or unhealthy) foods have been considered here. --Light current 12:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * classic british socialism. Jeremy Bentham is dead, people. I've seen his stuffed body and his wax head. The new world order is not utilitarianism, it's free-will. Jasbutal 12:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you realise that was nearly a little poem?--Light current 13:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't it enough that they pay more for food, and may have difficulty sitting comfortably in airplane seats? Then there's the fact that obesity links to numerous life-threatening health problems and they may be paying for it with their life at 37. I think they're paying enough already. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  13:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Punitive taxation methods could encourage them not to get like that, saving their lives and our money!--Light current 13:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Airplanes are an interesting case. It costs a certain amount in fuel for every pound they deliver to the destination, so it would be logical to charge, at least in part, by the weight of the passengers.  So far, the only cases where this has actually been done is when someone is so obese that they clearly require two seats (with the armrest removed). StuRat 13:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thats known as a flight case and if theyre paying for 2 seats well ok. --Light current 13:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as i see it it'd be a much better approach to promote healthy living instead of taxing those who are already in the situation. For example, why not have governments introduce highly subsidised gym memberships or equipment for everyone to use, make healthy foods cheaper, or reward those who are a healthy weight? I'd sure go for some "I'm a healthy weight so give me some free money" benefits. Benbread 13:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think a carrot and stick approach could work.....8-|--Light current 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Carrots for the healthy and sticks for the unhealthy? That doesn't sound very tasty to me... Benbread 14:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What ever happened to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Light current - I am curious - how do you justify penalising people on the basis of their weight when a proposal to penalise people for other inherited characteristics such as intelligence, height, skin colour or sexuality would be (quite rightly) considered grossly insulting ? Gandalf61 15:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

THier weight is (generally) something they can do something about and therfore can be commented upon. Not so with height, color, sexuality, race. Not sure about intelligence-- I think that can be improved. People are penalised for smoking, drinking, driving via taxation. Im asking if the same idea should be applied to obese people to improve everyones lives.--Light current 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly you know little or nothing about the subject. Yet you still feel the urge to comment on it at length and in the most crass and insensitive way. I can only conclude that you are just trolling. Gandalf61 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

THat is a very bad word to use here. You know that. And you conclude wrongly. I am asking for peoples opinions on this subject in which I have had an increasing interest with the growing amount of obesity in the western world. Anyway mostly other people are doing the commenting- Im just asking questions 8-)--Light current 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The operative word is "generally". While healthy living can affect your weight positively, it's proven weight has genetic factors. For example, how your body processes food depends on your metabolism. I'm pretty sure our articles on obesity and other related subjects reflect this. - Mgm|(talk) 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. If youve got a low metabolism, you dont need to eat so much!--Light current 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

THank you all for your replies. THe answer seems to be that it would be an unpopular idea to preferentially tax the fat people. If more discussion is needed I suggest continuing on talk:obesity--Light current 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Light, is there any reason why you capitalize TH ? StuRat 02:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I cant get my finger off the shift key quick enough! Sorry if its annoying. Fell free to correct it if I dont see it first.--Light current 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, after I saw 4 instances, I thought you were doing it intentionally, for some reason. StuRat 05:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * His skinny finger got stuck between the keys. DirkvdM 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument that some people are fat because of some genetic malfunction has been used a lot here. But how many of those people are there? By far most fat people have no such problem, so we could just make an exception for those who do. Simple. And about other genetic stuff like intelligence, there is most definitely discrimination there. People with a higher education get higher pay. Here, we're talking about really big differences (up to a factor 1000 or thereabouts), not just one more tax (a few percent at most). And to which extent we let the free market do its thing is a political choice. For example, the US is at one extreme here, and Cuba at another. There, street cleaners get a better pay than doctors because they do a dirty job. (Not surprisingly, streets in Cuba are very clean, but that's a differrnt issue :) ). DirkvdM 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Many people may think that Bill Gates is rich because he's smart, but a lot of the time it seems that ruthfullness is a much more useful trait. Many people considered to be the "smartest in the world" are scientests that work for research grants. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't talking about extremes but about everyday life. On average, more intelligent people will have a higher income. And I only mentioned intelligence as an example of discrimination based on genetic differnces. From the DirkvdM 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I was the one asking a while ago why we let stupid people vote. I don't think I'm talking about extremes though, unless you consider the word "rich" to be extreme. Anyway, the reasoning there is obviously that discrimination against stupid people is an unintentional social side-effect (though even I don't like the sound of that), though applying tax to fat people would be direct and intentional. Probably. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  09:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Richess is extreme when we are talking about Bill Gates. From a liberal point of view you're right that richess is a mere side effect of doing nothing, but one could also arue that it's the government's tas to decide to do nothing and it could also set society up in such a way that richess depends more on effort than intelligence. DirkvdM 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember a question asking if it was legal to have an "ugliness" tax, and somone brought up obesity. It was mentioned that in nations like the UK, where are healthcare is paid for by the government, obese people should pay extra since they might be delving into taxpayer money a bit more heavily.  Viva  La   V  i  e   Boheme! 

Sweet bleu cheese Roquefort (cheese)
I'm not worried, just curious. I just opened up a package of Roquefort, BBD November, 2006. It looks and smells fine (as fine as bleu cheese ever does), but it has a couple of small brown streaks, similar to the 'veins' of bacteria. Being adventurous, I tasted one and it was very sweet. I went ahead and used the cheese (homemade roquefort dressing) and it made the dressing so sweet I had to use a lot of extra vinegar to counter it. I'm eating it and I'm really not worried that it's going to make me sick (will update everyone if it does), but I wondered about the sweetness. Could it be from the base that the bacillus lived in? Maybe a couple of the veins of bacteria died, never eating the sugar (malt, probably). Anyone experinece this? Have any ideas? Anchoress 12:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I detect a little bit of the Quebecois here! Did you know that there are 26 types of cheese in the category 'blue cheeses'? --Zeizmic 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I didn't understand anything in your reply. Anchoress 13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's treacle. Did you know that syrup is in a very select pair of categories called Category:matter and Category:soft matter?--Shantavira 14:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL that was very funny. I detect a bit of the Sucrose here! Anchoress 14:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And perhaps a bit of taking the mick? (not sure on whose part!) ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (who doesn't eat bleu cheese except on Buffalo wings)
 * Wow. I learnt a lot about buffalo wings by reading that link. Interesting stuff. Anchoress 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if something has changed that bit of the cheese into something like Geitost. Tonywalton | Talk 11:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I don't know but that link was interesting. Anyways I'm still here, no ill effects. Anchoress 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a term for this phenomonon?
The television ad for HeadOn seems to be an example of an ad that "works" by being annoying. (If you have not had the pleasure of experiencing the HeadOn commercial, count your blessings. If you want to punish yourself, YouTube has it.) The commercial does seem to have worked, in that the product has received a great deal of attention, especially for a spot that is so short and lacking in production cost. Is there a term for this sort of ad? Also, I'm certain that there are other examples, but I can't think of any at the moment&mdash;which perhaps is an indication of the lack of endurance of these sorts of ad campaigns. Any thoughts on that? –RHolton ≡ – 13:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * crazy frog?--Light current 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Irritating commercials used to be far more common in the United States around 30 years ago, when the main method of testing whether an advertisement had worked was to perform telephone surveys to see whether people remembered a TV spot. These surveys made no distinction among the reasons people remembered the commercial: any reaction from This looks great and I want it to This insults my intelligence and I pledge never to buy it was considered equally desirable over Huh?  This style of advertising faded after some independent polls around 1980 rated Americans' most hated commercials (tops was a deodorant called Tickle, whose spot was mostly women laughing and was widely despised as idiotic).  The Tickle campaign was dropped immediately and shortly afterward American ad agencies copied a European trend of making the commercials themselves more entertaining.  None of this quite answers your question: Wikipedia has no article on Tickle deodorant and the advertising article doesn't cover the topic, but I hope this answer points in the right direction.  Back issues of Ad Age probably address it. Durova 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the UK, Cillit Bang and especially esure are currently well known for deliberately naff adverts. Sheila's Wheels deserve an honourable mention as well, although their ads are so much fun they are genuinely popular with certain strange people. --Howard Train 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The HeadOn commercial is the most irritating one presently on TV for me. A recording of a female is played repeatedly: "HeadOn! apply directly to the forehead! HeadOn! apply directly to the forehead! HeadOn! apply directly to the forehead!" In a Pavlovian response my finger hits the off button or mute button. Thus the TV station should charge extra, since they lose viewership. They sell another remedy for hemorrhoids called FreedHem. I have thought about calling them up and suggesting the commercial for that should say "FreedHem! Stick it up you a$$!FreedHem! Stick it up you a$$!FreedHem! Stick it up you a$$!" but now I won't have to. Edison 18:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that TV advertisers should charge based on the annoyance factor of ads. Highly entertaining ads, on the other hand, might get a discount, be shown for free, or, in extreme cases, the TV stations could even pay the advertiser for ads which actually draw viewers.  Such a practice would benefit both the TV stations and the general public. StuRat 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You must be psychic! The HeadOn commercial has been listed as the worst commercial of the year (and it's only August). That article has several jokes like "Chair! Apply directly to the ass!" Hyenaste (tell) 23:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Weight Average
There sure are a lot of overweight/obesity questions around lately, so here's another. Lets assume that this "crisis" escalates and suddenly the majority of people are over BMI 30, would this result in a very strange new average weight that would result in the once obese people becoming "normal" weight and the once normal weight people becoming labled as "underweight"? I can see this happening, and it sounds to me that it'd turn into people saying "Well, i used to be obese but now i'm perfectly average! Time to eat more snacks." Benbread 13:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However, average in such a case is not healthy! Compare the situation of manfs resizing clothes so that people dont feel fat by having to ask for size 66--Light current 13:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. If that was to happen, they would simply call the majority of people overweight instead of adjusting the definition of overweight. - Mgm|(talk) 16:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Overweight" in this context doesn't mean "heavier than average", it means something along the lines of "heavy enough to cause signficant long term health problems". Someone 5 feet 6 (1.67m) tall weighing 23 stone (332lb/146kg) is heavy enough to probably have signficant long term health problems, hence overweight, whether or not they're somewhere where that's the average weight. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anal Orgasms
Can men achieve anal orgasms? If so, how? Thank you. --64.230.87.7 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A man can achieve orgasm through the stimulation of his prostate gland, which is accessible through the rectum. I don't know if anal intercourse would provide sufficient and appropriate stimulation. Anchoress 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anal orgasm. With half a million Google hits I guess there must be such a thing. Maybe you should consult a some gay men before experimenting.--Shantavira 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not convinced of the statement above that orgasm can be produced by prostate stimulation alone. I am however fairly certain that it can induce ejaculation, which is not the same thing. THis is apparently a well used technique for obtaining semen samples and prostate drainage. --Light current 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just curious - where does that ejaculation occur exactly and what is being ejaculated (I don't want to visualise this). DirkvdM 07:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It occurs from where you'd normally expect ejaculation to occur, and consists of what you'd normally expect ejaculate to consist of. Tonywalton | Talk 13:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's a relief (it usually is :) ). DirkvdM 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Very unpleasent feeling while sporting...
Hello, I have a problem,

When I am running or doing some exercise with much strenght (like running as fast as I can) for 1 minute or more, I get the feeling im going to Puke and I need to rest a while and If after running I immidialy stop and lay down to rest it gets much more intense... I mean I didnt have the problem some years ago ! I have it past 2 Years... A friend said that it may be from my Heart cause it doent recieve enought Oxygen (Im 15 Years old) cause my heart is only still growing... But is there any way I can lesser the Symptoms? Cause it is more irritating then the other pain in the lower body from running cause then u can just say to ureself "keep running" but because of this I really cant run anymore even if my life would depend cause then I think (atleast i have the feeling) I would vommit...

Thanks for any reply --Marekso 15:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We have a standard reply that you should see your doctor on things like this. Like one girl (same age) that we know, you could have a tiny touch of Aortic insufficiency, which is hereditary.  She is still very athletic, but gets these types of spells when low on hydrating salts, etc. --Zeizmic 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohh... thanks for the reply. Then the next time i'll visit a Doctor i'll tell him about this... --Marekso 18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly question...
This is one of those stupid questions which sometimes just bug you, but you still wouldn't dare ask until you've had a number of martinis in you. Here goes: can you be sarcastic when speaking in sign language? I mean, is there like a special sign for it? Like a :), but in sign language? Or do you like, sign "bigger", or differently in any way? Oskar 15:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * More of a guess than an answer, but perhaps with facial expression? Not knowing any sign language I can't say for sure, though. &mdash; QuantumEleven 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, like most of the sarcasm I encounter, people don't flag it up; only common sense and knowing the person tells you they are being sarcastic. Or when they start laughing. Skittle 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might sign it while rolling your eyes or grinning, or perhaps signing "bigger" like you said. Even if you don't sign, you could imagine what it would be like. If you're angry you would sign "harder" than if you were not. Hyenaste (tell) 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From my experience studying sign language, it's all in the face. It can sometimes look goofy to people that don't understand sign language, but most manual communicators rely much more on exaggerated facial expression than in other languages. Things like pulling the head back while rolling eyes, slanty eye, smirking, and of course, the "angry face" are really common, even with rather formal interpretations like the news. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, there are no stupid questions. Yes, you can be sarcastic when signing, and yes, it is in your face. Almost all of the emotion and tone in sign language is conveyed by facial expression. -asianpear

Supermarket coupons
I wonder why some manufacturer coupons include instructions to supermarkets not to double the discount. In some cases I suppose the manufacturer wants consumers to get accustomed to paying something close to full retail value, but a different motivation has to operate in this particular insstance: the product (a brand of smoked sausages) runs frequent newspaper coupons for larger discounts and allows doubling for those other coupons. So why would the manufacturer want to prevent a grocery store from footing the cost of a smaller discount? (International Wikipedians, this issue may be rather U.S.-centric). Durova 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe those are typically store coupons, not manufacturer coupons. StuRat 02:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This one was marked manufacturer coupon. Durova 14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Is it possible some manufacturers have agreements with certain retailers saying the manufacturer will pay double (or triple) the face value, unless explicit prohibited on the coupon ? StuRat 01:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WW 1
I do not wish to sound stupid but i have read a book on the causes of WW1 and still dont get it. The assasination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the cause if WW1, but why, maybe that is not phrased to well, umm, why did the death of one man cause the whole world to be plunged into war? Why was he put in power in the first place if no one liked him, was he elected? or was there no other royalty? and if he was Austrian why did this effect Germany and england? ect ect ect. Could some one please explain this to me as if i were a 5 year old. Thank you very much.
 * Franz Ferdinand was basically an excuse for everyone to act on their various treaties and so on, by coming to the "defense" of their allies, people were able to get what they wanted.. Germany wanted land back from France, France wanted land back from Germany, Russia wanted ports, Italy wanted land,the UK wanted, something.. and so really, just an excuse to escalate the conflict-- VectorPotential 71.247.243.173 15:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but could some one ellaborate on this? If a county wants to go to war, they go to war, this was before the UN so...Napolian wanted war, he went and found it.
 * This was way post-Napoleon, so there were some international bodies in place to stop this sort of thing, most of them broke down. Beisdes, they didn't want to just go to war, they wanted to make sure they, whoever the "they" is, had at least half of Eurasia on their side, to make sure they didn't lose anything else. This was after a century of bitter warfare, and territorial disputes, and don't even get me started on over seas colonies-- VectorPotential 71.247.243.173 16:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically what had happened was that the major countries of Europe had entered alliance treaties with each other so that if any one power went to war, several others would get dragged along and expand the conflict. At the risk of oversimplification, the ultimate cause might be traced to German military expansion and clumsy foreign policy. Durova 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point Durova. I'd say it was German insecurity - surrounded by potential enemies, Germany had little choice for survival. It's worth considering that she was only fully unified in 1871 or thereabouts, and a young nation while all the causes of war were being laid down. The armistice in 1918 did nothing to solve this, leaving Germany once again vulnerable, humiliated, surrounded by powerful rivals and with an urgent need to secure her defence. Three of those apply to Israel today, which is why the Middle East is in such trouble to this day. --Howard Train 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Israel isn't quite powerless, is it? Hell, they even have nuclear weapons. DirkvdM 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To call Germany fully unified in 1871 is an application of hindsight. German speakers in Austria-Hungary did not necessarily conceive of themselves as having a separate national identity from German speakers elsewhere in the way they do today.  Throughout most of the century, starting with Napoleon's abolition of the Holy Roman Empire, there had been a trend toward consolidating German-speaking territories under a single government.  It would have taken a crystal ball in 1880 or 1912 to suppose that this trend (in any lasting sense) had ended.  I doubt that Germany's national survival was threatened: the country had never been stronger.  What it lacked was any talented successor to Otto von Bismarck. Durova 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the Napoleonic Wars, Britain had been the world's leading superpower and the leading power of Europe. Germany had grown strong economically and was looking for a chance to challenge Britain for the role of top dog. Austria-Hungary's power, on the other hand, was increasingly in question as its various nationalities pushed for more independence. Serbian nationalism (which led to the assassination) was an example of the nationalism that posed a danger to the very existence of Austria-Hungary.  So Austria-Hungary felt it had to act forcefully against Serbia that would serve as an example to Slavic nationalists within its borders.  Germany saw an opportunity not only to come to the aid of its alliance partner and fellow German speakers in Austria-Hungary but also to make some territorial gains at the expense of Russia, which would enhance its power within Europe. However, France and Britain both had an interest in stopping Germany expansion.  The French, in particular, were angry and resentful at having lost Alsace and Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian War and wanted to win those provinces back from Germany.  Britain wanted to remain top dog in Europe.


 * As you probably know, the details are these: France had formed an alliance with Russia and Britain to try to encircle its enemy, Germany. So when Russia moved to try to protect its informal ally, Serbia, from Austrian attack, Germany, in support of Austria, declared war on France. To avoid France's border defenses, Germany attacked neutral Belgium with the aim of attacking France from the north. Because Britain had an agreement to defend Belgium from attack and an alliance with France and Russia, this brought Britain into the war as well.  Thus, all the major European powers were drawn into the conflict, mainly to try to stop German aggression.  Marco polo 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflicts
 * The superb article on Causes_of_World_War_I covers all this in great depth. After Franz Ferdinand was killed in Sarajevo, the Austro-Hungarian government delivered the July Ultimatum to the government of Serbia. One of their demands was that Serbia allow Austria-Hungary to take proceedings against conspirators on Serbian soil, in effect giving up part of their sovereignty. Serbia refused and Austria-Hungary declared war.


 * This is where the matrix of alliances, treaties and ententes come into play. The only reason Serbia felt able to refuse the demands was because they could count on Russian support in the event of war. With Russia mobilising its forces to attack Austria-Hungary, Germany felt threatened and did the same.


 * Russia and France having pledged to support each other if either one was attacked, Germany thus risked being surrounded. So they activated the Schlieffen Plan, which called for a pre-emptive invasion of France through Belgium and Luxembourg (going the long way round because they needed the space in order the encircle the French army - the objective was not to conquer France, rather to neuter her armed forces and allow more troops to be committed fighting Russia). Britain declared war on Germany in order to protect Belgium. All the alliances that were supposed to prevent war in fact dragged every major power (except Italy, which refused to honour the treaty on the grounds that Austria-Hungary was an aggressor) into the twentieth century in the most horrible way imaginable.


 * Turned out that Blackadder was right about the plan to avoid war by being part of an invincible superbloc: "It was bollocks." None of the Great Powers was prepared to let another win more territory in Europe for fear of upsetting the balance of power. They pledged to defend smaller nations in return for influence in their regions, and never realised how ineffective the deterrent was. Deterrence would have to wait for nuclear weapons that can destroy a country in minutes to become a viable strategy.

--Howard Train 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that it was called a world war, but that's rather Eurocentric. It's not like "the whole world was plunged into war", as you put it. The map in the article shows that most of the world was involved, but that was largely just in name because the European colonies were still intact. In most parts of the world there was no fighting at all.
 * The most important thing about history is that one can learn from it. Like Howard said, superblocs are a bad thing. We were lucky to survive the cold war. If the USSR hadn't been willing to accept humiliation in the Cuban missile crisis, all hell might have broken loose. I wonder if the EU might constitute a new threat in this sense. Then again, one can not generalise too much. It's not that alliances are necessarily bad. But predicting what they will lead to is almost impossible. The only way out that I see is a worldwide alliance (the UN). Countries should only form a block when they thus form a majority and are therefore sure to win (one of the teachings of Confucius, I believe). For that you need a general consensus and that is as close as we can get to objective justice, which is a nice bonus. The downside is that in most cases no action will be taken because there is no consensus. Or is that a downside? DirkvdM 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

sci-fi movies
why some sci-fi movies have a nude scene though sci-fi books doesn't contain them? Can you give list of movies that have nude scene? (P.S.: try your best to find many as you can. Thanks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.149.71 (talk • contribs)
 * Becuase they want people to see the movie, but they don't want to actually take the effort to adapt the book, thus, nudity. Also, most novels don't have pictures, so a "nude scene" wouldn't be very gratifying(edit conflict)-- VectorPotential 71.247.243.173 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * fanservice might shed some light on this, but I'd say it's because it might get more box office? ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a presumption. Do you have actual examples? =- Mgm|(talk) 16:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is a very common occurrence either. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )
 * Starship Troopers (movie) threw in a gratuitous shower scene, as I recall. And while "nude" may be a bit of a stretch for many examples, the more generic "titillating" is not.  How does the monster in Star Wars 2 rip the bulk of Natalie Portman's shirt off without (1) killing her or (2) exposing her breasts? (yeah, yeah, not a book adaptation -- but it's the same thing) &mdash; Lomn | Talk 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You must remember that Starship Troopers was all about gener equality, as well as the main plot :) Iola k ana • T  17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think sci-fi movies generally aim at a wider (average teen-20s male) audience than most sci-fi novels do (teen-old, slightly geekier), thus the content of the production will be different. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  14:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess is that MOST Hollywood films tend to target as many young males as possible. Action flicks are one way of getting them. Sex is another. Even if there is no actual sex, a scantily clad woman is usually considered incentive enough. This is not just Sci-Fi, either. I have never been more disappointed with a film adaptation than when I saw Phantom of the Opera in it's latest adaptation. The lead female role spent half of the time in lace hosery and silk robes. Even in the snow. POTO would other wise hold little appeal to the average teen or early-20s male, though, so they threw that in. -Russia Moore 02:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Virus
When some idiot puts a virus onto the internet, does his computer not get affected too? or where do these things come from? and why how would man A benefit from man B's computer no longer working?
 * Computer virus may give you some good information on this. As I understand it, a lot of the creators just get a laugh out of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, I imagine it's an act of sheer boredom, and they probably also use a junk computer, that they can afford to reformat. Of course man A might benefit when man B, C, D, E.... X, Y, and Z's computers all start sending financial information to man A. But that's more of a spyware thing(Edit conflict, again, Miscellaneous seems to cause those a lot)-- VectorPotential 71.247.243.173 16:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is really a fun thing to do for the hacker. I'm sure we all know the feeling of doing something mischievous and getting away with it. I like to learn how to do a lot of things, but of course never do them. Just knowing I can do it is good enough for me. It's just mean if you actually do it. Kind of like nuclear weapons. :P Maybe it has something to do with power? "I have nukes and you don't!" You don't have to use them to prove it to yourself that you have the upperhand. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * Most virusses only get activated when you click an email attachment or take some other specified action. Since the creator knows what activates the virus, he simply doesn't do it. Also, a lot of viruses are made to clog up email servers which doesn't neccesarily affect the virus creator. And finally, if someone can create a virus, they are probably able to write a fix code for themselves too. =-Mgm|(talk) 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you're a script kiddie, like most "virus writers." Then you're screwed.
 * I'm not aware of any app that generates viruses.. if one existed, its output would surely be blocked by antivirii .. and be useless --Froth 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are virus-builder toolkits out there. You specify the pieces you want (email propagation, IRC command channel, remote shell, etc), and it'll produce a made-to-order virus, ready to be distributed. --Serie 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ready to be blocked you mean. I would imagine that such "toolkits" would be easy targets for virus labs; they could just match to every element available in the toolkit and it would be useless --Froth 23:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fear
Which governments have ruled through fear, the Nazi's did, i suppose, but any other. or to put it another way which governments/forms of governments have in the past ruled thier people with an iron fist and cruelty and been despised by thier people? Not as in Zimbabwe were they dont like him but he does not go out of his way to kill his own people in evil y'know'whatimean?


 * Well, that antichrist that is the ruler of Zimbabwe doesn't do anything at all to help the country as far as I know. The country is a hellhole. Mongol empire. Then there's god. He rules with an iron fist. I don't think we are have a revolution anytimes soon. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * I would suggest that throwing farmers off their land (resulting in a huge cut in food production) and then refusing outside food aid is going out of your way to kill your own people. DJ Clayworth 17:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Stalin was perhaps worse than Hitler. Mao Zedong was pretty bad, too. Then there's Pol Pot. StuRat 23:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are probably some List of dictators. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The examples given so far are explicit, however, fear can been much more subtle. (weasel word) Some (/weasel word) say the current US administration rules through fear. It doesn't take an expert political analyst to realise that ratcheting up the "terrorists are out to get us" rhetoric during an election campaign tends to overshadow domestic issues like the economy, health and education. Its psychologically challenging for an electorate to vote out a leader when, as they are told, "we are at war"  Rockpock e  t  05:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

logging out
what percentage of people log out of websites, for instance when i leave work, i will not log out oof wiki, ill just close Internet Explorer, switch off and go
 * As a college student who uses public computers a lot, I can tell you people almost never bother to log out of facebook, or yahoo for that matter. It always boggles my mind why you'd leave that kind of information sitting around-- VectorPotential 71.247.243.173 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why either. If I'm on a public computer I run through proxies and store no cookies or history while I'm there and log out before I leave. Actually I met User:Ccool2ax after I told him on his talk page that he didn't sign off. In an hour he came back, sitting behind me, and logged into wikipedia. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )
 * I wonder how many users log out of WP on their home computer (I don't). Guess anyone? --hydnjo talk 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Less than one percent probably --Froth 03:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I always do so that no evil Wikipedians can take over my computer!--Light current 04:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not logging out of Wikipeida is no big deal. Anyone can access it (that's the point), so the only problem is that other people could start doing stuff in your name. What is the chance of that happening (especially on a home computer) and how bad would it be? Not logging out of webmail i an internet shop is something completely different. People can do really stupid things. Recently, I sat oposite a social security guy who, when he logged into his account, turned the screen away from me so I couldn't see his password. I, however, made the mistake of not focusing on his keyboard. I wonder what I could have done with that password ... :) DirkvdM 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern Slavery
In the article on slavery, there is mention of slaves that can be purchased in this era, but it doesn't provide where they can be purchased. What countries allow slavery, and what countries don't allow it but have covert slavery anyway? --216.164.200.224 16:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you tried looking on ebay? you can find just about anything there--71.247.243.173 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, serious answer this time, try this section of the Slavery article--71.247.243.173 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that part of the article, and now I see that it says no country legalizes slavery, but the only countries it says slavery exists in covertly are Sudan, Mali, and Thailand. That doesn't seem like a complete list to me. --216.164.200.224 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It probably isn't a complete list. To some extent slavery exists probably everywhere. There have certainly been people in the US held prisoner against their will and forced to work (usually in the sex trade). DJ Clayworth 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * White slavery, sex slavery, wage slavery, Trafficking in human beings, etc. Rmhermen 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In Turkey, the police appear to be complicit in the sex slavery trade. StuRat 23:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Haven't you seen that episode of walker texas ranger when the mexican town pays all their money to send their young people to america, only to have them forced to work on a farm? Or was that macgyver.. anyone else remember? --Froth 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What about reality? In Africa (and probably elsewhere) kids are sent to the big city to make money for the family, ofen under deplorable circumstances. This is a form of economic slavery. In name they have a choice, but in reality they don't. For the village to survive they have to send out money makers, so there's a lot of social pressure on those who could do that. DirkvdM 08:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you count everyone who is forced to work to survive, then 90% of the world is enslaved. StuRat 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You said it. Give me enough time and I'll make a commie out of you yet. :) DirkvdM 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC) (btw, you don't need to tell me that's not how you meant it)


 * In light of your revelation that you haven't worked for 15 years and quit the job the government found for you, your attitude that "all work is slavery" makes a lot more sense. :-) StuRat 05:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Font
Hey I know this has probably been answered somewhere already but how do you change the font in your sig?--Captain DLucks 17:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just go to your preferences, and make your signature like the following:

name

where "font style" could be "Matisse ITC", "Times New Roman", etc. and name is your name.

--  the     GREAT     Gavini   17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I make it in italics? --Captain DLucks 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * that's easier... surround whatever you want in italics with two single quotes. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, you need to tick the box called 'Raw signature'. --Richardrj talkemail 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And just to be clear that's two pairs of single quotes; "quotequote"stuff"quotequote". Tonywalton | Talk 11:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then don't forget to make every letter of you name a different color, and include an icon, or several, so as to make the signature take up an entire page whenever some hapless victim tries to edit that section. :-) StuRat 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and don't forget to make your signature a really bright solid color like mine, so you can see your posts while browsing RD at 12 pages a second! freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  14:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll get wrong if you include an icon. This says Images of any kind should not be used in signatures. (And gives the real guidelines, though I do prefer yours). Tonywalton | Talk 09:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Faulty political beliefs common in the U.S.
Why do people favor libertarianism over statism? Libertarianism ultimately leads to downfall of a society due either to the incapacity of the society to handle environmental problems, to being conquered by another society which uses statism, or other such causes. Also, why do people still support the concept of human rights, even though it doesn't make much sense for the society as a whole? Thanks --Life 17:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Notinasnaid 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that page declares that "Wikipedia articles" may not have bias. This question has bias, but it is not an article. So, as my question is reasonable, I would like an answer. --Life 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, then, from the top of the Ref Desk: The Reference Desk is not a soapbox. &mdash; Lomn | Talk 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We really need a template to that effect, similar to the one that reminds people that we're not here to do people's homework-- VectorPotential 71.247.243.173 11:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Any answer that involves "preference" as in "why do people prefer X over Y" is also going to have bias in it, which will come from the person answering it. So are you looking for a defense of certain preferences? I think that's what Notinasnaid is getting at, that's not our function here. For me to answer the question would require that I refute your faulty premises and so forth to demonstrate that the beliefs are in fact not faulty, and WP is not a place for political advocacy. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You should read Plato's Republic - I think you'd really enjoy it. Towards the end Socrates describes the different types of government (Monarchy, Oligarchy etc), how each type metamorphoses into the other, and the predominant mindset of the citizens of each type. A brilliantly perceptive book even 2500 years after it was written.
 * You'd also probably enjoy The Prince by Machiavelli, which describes how different states with different leadership philosophies can overthrow each other. Although they may make you as cynical and cranky as me. :) Rentwa 00:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well for one satanism isn't exactly conducive to a peaceful society either --Froth 04:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Life already seems to have made his/her mind up about the matter. I don't see how answering would help. = Mgm|(talk) 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, they seem to be asking for the rationalization for the opposing opinion, not trying to make up their mind. Zocky | picture popups 14:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism is based on the concept that individual rights come first, and the group rights are based on individual rights. That people should have Liberty as an ideal. One should be able to do what one wishes, as long as it does not harm anyone else. That government should interefere with individual liberty as little as is possible or necessary.

The other end of the spectrum would be like communism in China, where what is best for society, and for everyone as a whole is more important than individual rights. The good of the many superceeds the good of the one. Government should be strong, in order to continually monitor and decide what is in the best interests of the whole, and minimize the interference of the by-nature selfish needs and desires of the individuals. If an individual must suffer, or sacrifice, that's unfortunate, but for the better life for everyone.

Personally, I think neither is correct. But, I would lean more toward individual liberty rather than group think. But, that's just my view. Strangely, in the U.S., republicans have been fighting for generations against the "evil of communism". And once communism was "deafeated" with the downfall of the U.S.S.R. Now we see a strong move to the right, and the kind of fascist government developing (erosion of individual liberties, rationalization of human rights violations, for the betterment and safety of us all) that they have been fighting against for so long. Atom 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Atom 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia polls etc?
ive used this reference desk a few times for those little questions that nowhere else seems to have the answer to, and it seems to work GREAT! My question is though, is there a place in wikipedia where i can create polls or ask for advice or assistance? I am just starting out this little web community project and i would like to find a way to get advice and opinions for free, or be able to contact people willing to be part of either the community itself or the development of it. (actual coding for the site etc) I dont have a ton of money, but i think my idea is good to be honest. If there isnt already an area like this in wiki, there should be in my opinion. :) Anyway, if anyone has any valuable places for me to go, please comment. Thanks.

~P.S. If anyone out there would actually like to help, my website is here: ChillSpot2003"DOT"brinkster"DOT"net

Also i state more about my idea here: chillspot2003"DOT"brinkster"DOT"net/about"DOT"htm

Thanks again!

--208.45.125.104


 * Nice banner. As for the advice, wikipedia's really not the place. maybe a developer's forum? --Froth 03:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

teenyboppers
How can I tell which girl is a teenybopper or not?
 * Have you read the article? If so, then it would be someone who you feel conforms to that description.  It's subjective.  It's not like they're marked with the number of the beast or anything.  Again, it's your call.  Dismas|(talk) 21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well they are marked. See cooties. --Froth 03:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your best bet is to use the process of elimination. First you can scratch out all the girls with white faces, black eyes, tattoos and face piercings, then the ones that dress like Bob Marley, Chaplin, or Waldo, and just keep on cutting down the list. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  14:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do TV channels store sensitive tapes?
I just got off watching another documentary, where innocent people had their faces blurred, and names were beeped. Obviously there has to be an original tape, perhaps BBC or other companies are told to keep them so the police may use them for their work. Anyway, without knowing much about the archive system for TV channels, would anyone else know if such sensitive tapes are stored in special places? Hehehehe, I should sooo expect someone to wonder why I am asking this. Thanks!

Henning 20:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you?--Light current 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea and here is an almost, if not entirely, unrelated link Robin Hood (BBC TV series) MeltBanana  22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Rocko's Modern Life episode Wacky Delly (Wikipedia has everything!) can be taken as fact, the reels are stored in a dark, probably humidity and temperature controlled, likely fireproof room. It would appear by MeltBanana's link that such storage rooms are kept near shooting, and don't have locks, or have very easily passed ones. Hyenaste (tell) 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I work at a local television news station in the USA. If you are referring to tapes with sensitive content, the originals are usually kept in a locked cabinet in the possession of a high management person (the news director or the station manager, usually). Sometimes if there are pending legal issues, a corporate attorney will take custody of them. (By the way, it is our station's policy that no one outside the station gets access to any of our tapes without a court order.) If you are referring to how tapes are kept for physical preservation, they are typically kept in a locked, air-conditioned storage room. We don't have a vault or anything like that. (I imagine some large network facilities might have some very valuable footage that they keep in more secure facilities, but the usual news operation doesn't do that.) We are in the process of converting all of our videotape over to XD-Picture Card discs. — Michael J  23:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's always fascinating discovering how others get off. Some people like porn, others watch documentaries. :--) JackofOz 01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then theres the people who sit in front of a computer all day leaving comments on wikipedia...i dont know whats more sad, watching documentaries to broaden your mind or mocking people on wikipedia 24/7. :D Im in ur house 01:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then there are those who not only don't get such well-natured humour, but self-righteously mislabel it as something negative. Just in case you missed it, re-read the first 7 words of the question.  Go in peace, I forgive you.  :--)  JackofOz 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah Jack, I get it now. That one was very well concealed! Well I really didnt read the original question. 2 points--Light current 03:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The people who sit here 'all day leaving comments' as you put it are actually WP editors who have volunteered to man these reference desks to try to answer peoples questions. Once in a while we cant resist a little joke,-- to keep ourselves from becoming too sad, but we hope it's not held against us. 8-)--Light current 03:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Or in some cases, all the time. Like -cough- you. >_> I love yeh man. --Froth 03:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah but Im trying to cut down -- I keep laughing at my own jokes too much! 8-|--Light current 03:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They are good... I was particularly tickled by "not many atoll" :p --Froth 04:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I cant claim full credit for that one, as I modified an earlier StuRat pun (I think it was his)--Light current 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, please leave the royalties on my talk page. :-) StuRat 04:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Police work, you say. I'm not sure it hold in all countries but I in Sweden, I'm not sure the police are allowed to ask journalists for sources. Oh well, doesn't answer your question. —Bromskloss 08:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the answers! High ranking person keeping the tapes does make good sense. :) Henning 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I consult on technology and workflow for the media and entertainment industry, primarily in the USA. Quite a bit of my work involves call-letter television stations. Firstly, I should note that most call-letter television stations do not produce documentaries - most produce 7-15 hours of content a week - usually in the form of the local news.  Do you know for sure that the show you saw was produced by your local TV station?  If so, I'm sorry to report that there is no standard for how stations handle their video assets.  Some larger stations digitize them and store them in a digital asset library.  (something akin to a ADIC Scalar or Sony Petasite, freqently managed by archive asset managers like Front Porch, Blue Order or Avalon). Other stations may maintain a library of physical tapes, cataloged and managed by an archivist or librarian.  And unfortunately, many stations do not do a good job of managing their video assets:  tapes may be left in the desk of the show's producer, or on a bookshelf in an edit bay.  If your local TV station is making documentaries, it's likely that they are large enough to have one of the more formal archive solutions.  dpotter 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)