Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 July 9

subculture 1
Besides Goth and Punk, is there any subculture that are related to Rock 'n' Roll?
 * Teds, mods, rockers, rastas, greasers, skinheads, metallers, gangstas... all of these and many many more are either directly related to rock music or at the least influenced by/connected with it. Grutness...wha?  02:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Metalheads, Moshers, Indie (mm), Fashioncore, Emo, Pop-rock, Ska Punk (sort of). Philc  TECI 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

subculture 2
Is there any subculture that are related to Hip-hop/Rap?

House Selling under Scottish (Scots) Law
Sorry for repeating this question originally posed under Humanities whence no responses were forthcoming, but I really would appreciate a current, accurate and timeous response (insofar as is reasonable)to this troublesome and very pertinent House Selling difficulty under Scottish (Scots) Law. Please don't advise me to see a Lawyer - that is the source of my current problem and this subsequent quest for impartial advice.

Could someone please advise whether, under Scots Law, a houseowner intent on selling the house, is legally obliged to advise potential buyers of any ongoing or previous neighbour-related tensions, disputes, or other such hostilities, whether or not the potential buyer asks that specific question?

And is the seller's agent/solicitor also legally obliged to answer such a buyer's question if such disputes are known to him/her even if any such problems have not been disclosed by the seller, but have been made known by other means?

What would be the buyer's redress(es) if such problems did exist but were not disclosed to him before the sale was concluded?

Many thanks in anticipation for any useful responses. But please, no speculative or emotive responses.


 * I dont know but have you tried the Citizens Advice Bureau. {Find your nearest CAB}? Jameswilson 00:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Er...perhaps you should see a different lawyer? They're the ones trained in the law, after all.  If you're not comfortable working with your current lawyer, you should find another&mdash;but asking for help from strangers on an internet forum is never a way to resolve legal problems.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, Tenofalltrades, now why didn't I think of that? It never occurred to me that Lawyers might be trained in the law. I wish I was as clever as you. But to you Jameswilson, thanks for reading and interpreting my question correctly. At least you understood that I wanted some independent advice. Some people.................

Weird Question
I dont know if this is the place to post this question, but I was wondering if I was just crazy or if others out there would be upset like me if this happend to them.

I have this friend, and him and I were best friends. I met this girl (they were never friends before) and we started going out and we went out for 6 months on and off. At the end she cheated on me and now my ex girlfriend and the person who I thought was one of my best friends are friends and they go out sometimes (I know hes not trying to get with her because she has a new boyfriend). Do I not have the right to be mad at him? I mean if he was really my friend he wouldnt be friends with her and go out with her and be friends with her and her boyfriend. I even told him on two different occasions that I dont like him talking to her. I even yelled at him for shaking her hand one time when she stuck her hand out. Am I crazy or should I be really mad? Thanks


 * Well, we're not an agony aunt; our purpose is primarily to provide references to factual information - the factual information relevant to your situation is primarily contained in the article jealousy.


 * For what it's worth, in my opinion while it's certainly extremely common to wish that your friends avoided contact with an ex, it's not particularly rational or productive to stay mad at your friend, or for that matter your ex-girlfriend. Neither of them are your property.  That said, it perhaps isn't so nice for your friend to ignore your feelings on the matter, and I can certainly understand why you might feel a bit peeved.  But feeling that way isn't going to do anything except make you feel miserable.  --Robert Merkel 07:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He's still your best friend. Unless he and the girl cheated on you while you were dating here, there's no reason why you should put your friendship on the line over your ex. Trust me on this. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I was your friend, I wouldnt see anything wrong in it. You cant say to your friend "I dont like her anymore so neither should you". Just because things didnt work out between you and your ex- doesnt mean she's suddenly turned into a monster - lots of people probably still get on fine with her. Jameswilson 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I was in a very similar situation (only the other way round) a large number of years ago. My best friend and his girlfriend were clealy having a couple of problems, and I told both of them, separately, that if they ever needed someone to talk to about it, then I was available. She did, and started seeing me for more than just talk after they later broke up. As I said, this was many years ago, and my best friend of the time is still one of my best friends, although we did have a period of being quite cold to each other. In fact, I was later best man at his wedding (to a different woman, I hasten to add!). So yeah, being a bit mad for a while is understandable, especially if you still have feelings for the woman. But after a while you'll probably find that being mad for a long time is counterproductive (or at least dumb). Grutness...wha?  01:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

MegAtomiX Media
Hey, does anyone know if this website, MegAtomix Media (http://www.megatomix.com) is still being used by anyone. I used to be a member there, but my account got deleted. Recently, I was interested in joining again, but as far as I could tell, no one has used it since early 2005.

I wasn't sure if maybe you have to be a member to view the new material, or if the site had moved..or what??

--LBJacob09 06:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been the volunteer forum administrator for them since before they were MegAtomiX. I can tell you that I haven't heard anything from any staff member for a very long time. I wouldn't even try to sign up until you see things updated from the front page. --Desert Sky 13:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Group Stations
I've had a look at the usage notes for the station stats and was wondering is there a sure fire way of working out which of the group stations is the main station. I realise that some are obvious such as the main station that represents Birmingham Stations is Birmingham New Street, but some are less obvious, e.g Warrington. Thanks for any help DannyM 09:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's always the busiest station in the town or city - i.e, the one which appears first in the full stats. Warofdreams talk 09:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Capital
What is the capital of Kazakstan? Thanks


 * Astana. --Killfest2 11:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it can be a bit weird, like it used to be Almaty. For instance, it isn't entirely clear what the capital of Tanzania is. Evilbu 13:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems clear enough to me. The legal, official capital is Dodoma.  It used to be Dar es Salaam, where many government offices are still located.  Changes of capitals sometimes take many decades to accomplish.  When Australia became a federation in 1901, the capital was Melbourne and most government offices had their headquarters there.  Canberra became the new capital in 1927, but even in the late 1970s there were some departments that had not yet moved from Melbourne.  JackofOz 02:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But the capital doesn't have to be the seat of government, like in the Netherlands, where Amsterdam is the capital and The Hague the seat of government. (Which pisses off some Amsterdammers, that they have to live under the yoke of those 'Hagenezen'.) DirkvdM 06:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation
What does 'Маленький мальчик нашёл пулемёт — Больше в деревне никто не живёт' mean? Thanks - 02pollaj
 * "A little boy found a machine gun —
 * Now his village's population is none."
 * David Sneek 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This should have been posted on the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 14:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What movie, TV episode, or videogame is this?
I remember seeing something where Man A pays Man B to kill a person (I think at a train station), and when Man A gets there, he finds out he's supposed to kill Man B. I have no idea what this could be. Any ideas?


 * It sounds a little bit like the novel Good news, bad news by David Wolstencroft. Good book. --Howard Train


 * I assume you mean "when Man B gets there he finds out he's supposed to kill Man A". No other help though. DJ Clayworth 17:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

12.161.140.3 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)== 1984 ==

I am looking for a school that was in Phoenix Arizona in 1982-1985, named, Arizona Career College. It was a postsecondary private school. Specifically, I am looking for witih whom it was accredited through.
 * Have you tried Google? 69.40.246.45 05:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for the same thing-- I work at a University and have a student who went there. Google was no help-- I looked at every reference without finding accreditation information. I decided to call the bigger national accrediting bodies like ACCSCT and ACICS. No records were found with ACCSCT. I called ACICS (Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools), and back when they used to be called AICS, they accredited Arizona Career College. The person I spoke with at ACICS said that Arizona Career College is found in their 1987 book of accredited institutions, and their initial accreditation date was 1977. He was not sure when they ceased being accredited, but the school closed on 6/30/1988, so they may have been accredited up until their closing date. They definitely were accredited by ACICS from 1977 through 1987. ACICS can be reached at (866) 510-0746. We think that the records/transcripts are kept with the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education. Here is that information: Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education 1400 W. Washington, Room 260 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Phone 602-542-5709

Doorknob
When was the doorknob invented? Does anyone know for certain? Bhumiya (said/done) 15:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably around the same time as the door, so people could open them from both sides. Philc  TECI 15:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, the familiar rotating doorknob which retracts a pin holding the door shut likely came along much later than the door, but still in prehistoric times. So, we probably don't know when or where.  Maybe an archeologist might have some guesses, though.  I suspect the first "doors" were just objects placed in front of cave openings which were removed to gain entrance or exit.  Hinges and doorknobs require a level of craftsmanship not available at that time. StuRat 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * They didnt specify a rotating doorknob that retracts a pin. A doorknob can simply be some sort of protrusion from the door to allow the door to be gripped easily. Philc  TECI 16:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I call that a handle, not a doorknob. StuRat 02:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The article begs to differ. Philc  TECI 23:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know the answer, but an odd historical note about doorknobs: they were originally placed in the middle of doors, for aesthetic reasons, but where later moved to the outside edge, because it is much easier to open doors that way (see torque). zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, next historical origins question: what was the origin of the stupid American middle school custom of yelling "doorknob" when flatulence is detected? Is it still done, or now lost in the mists of primeval time? alteripse 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You would be referring to Doorknob (game). --Maxamegalon2000 00:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would indeed. I am flabbergasted someone thought to write an article on this. alteripse 03:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Songs similar to Iggy Pop's "Nightclubbing"
Can anyone name similar songs? Not by theme or lyrics, but by sound. It can be instrumental as well, I don't mind.

This song is interesting to me because of the slow, rhythmic pace, and the weird "drowsy" melody. I really liked it. ☢  Ҡ i∊ ff   ⌇  ↯  16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for a stupid question
I know this question has a logical answer, but no one seems to be able to find any evidence or examples. The question is this: Does an amputee (let's say, for ease of argument, a double-leg amputee) get drunk faster after the amputation than he/she did with limbs intact? Logically, your blood-alcohol level will increase faster if you have less blood; a person with no legs has less blood than a person with two legs. But has anyone ever documented this before? Are there any amputees out there who have experienced this? I'm basically looking for a citation. TheSPY 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The effect would be small because most alcohol is disposed of by liver metabolism and urinary excretion, both of which are proportional to body size with legs. The blood volume would only be slightly less without legs anyway (maybe 90-95%), and the blood volume makes a difference only to the initial volume of distribution of the alcohol. Maybe you could show that a person with a 5% smaller blood volume "feels it" faster when he drinks, but again the effect would be small (maybe a couple of minutes or less) and lost in all the larger sources of variation in alcohol effect (especially genetic differences and amount of previous drinking experience). If you want citations on alcohol metabolism to confirm what I am asserting here, google ethanol metabolism, but I have never seen a discussion specifically address differences after amputation. alteripse 17:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, it follows logically. Now, an amputee might tend to build muscle elsewhere to compensate for the missing limb(s); in that case you'd have at least some corresponding increase in blood volume.  In any case, as Alterprise notes the difference percentage-wise would be fairly small since most of the blood in your body is in your trunk and brain.  I wouldn't be surprised if no one has actually done the study, however&mdash;the result is an 'obvious' one, there's no useful medical purpose, and the supply of double amputees is relatively small.  Clearance rate, meanwhile, depends on your liver and is unaffected by amputation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bedshaped
I heard a song that was the same, if not very similar to the keane song bedshaped, but this was in classical style, and I thought in a foreign language, there was less emphasis on the instrumentation, and more on the vocals (there were atleast parts, if not the whole song, without instruments). I was wondering could anyone tell me what this is?


 * I think you mean "Bedshaped (Cosi)" by Vittorio Grigolo. As a Gooner, I ought not to have anything to do with things named Keane...   SLUMGUM    yap    stalk    05:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a manc, I think hes a hero, and don't understand why he's been pushed out of the team (alan smith holding midfielder my ass) Philc  TECI 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sports timer
In many sports, even when the play of the game is paused, the clock still runs. Why is that? Reywas92 22:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In soccer specifically, they calculate the amount of time that was wasted whent he play was stopped and add it onto the game at the end. That's why it says "Time Added". --Jamesino 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Like in football (soccer), they add stoppage time to compensate. Probably in others sports too. --Proficient 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The time added is often (perhaps usually) not enough to compensate, however. For example, in the recent Holland-Portugal game six minutes were added at the end of the second half, but most likely upwards of 15 minutes were lost due to ejections, cards, injuries, and so on. Overtime halves are a third of the length of regulation halves, but oftentimes only have 15-20 seconds or less of stoppage time, while a regulation half on average has 2-4 minutes of stoppage time. Football/soccer is one of the few sports that work this way. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having grown up with the football (soccer) system I get very irritated by sports that do stop the clock all the time. It takes so long to get started again. There should be a fifteen-second rule or something. As it is, players wander around talking to each other, talking to the coach, having a drink. Thats not what I,ve paid to watch! Get on with it! I want uninterrupted action and get home before midnight.

PS Soccer players would do the same if they were allowed to I,m sure (and they do spin out injuries and so on so everyone can take a breather). Jameswilson 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's his point. The clock-stopping rule causes this behaviour, no matter what the sport.
 * I can think of two reasons. One, sports are usually done by amateurs (they form the vast majority of the players), who don't have the means to keep time that accurately (they'd have to hire someone to do that). Two, you'd need a portable stopwatch for that, and I don't know how long that has been something 'normal people' could afford. But for most of the history of most sports there will not have been a stopwatch, so it's tradition. You just try changing a tradition in a sport. :)
 * So one could reverse the qwuetsion. In which sports is the time stopped (they probably form a tiny minority) and when was that introduced? Or was it introcuced later or part of the design of the sport? I bet these are all recent sports (probably most from the US). DirkvdM 06:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When the NASL was new to america, and a huge league had sprawled over a country that had no idea how to play the sport, among other comical errors, one referee thought that you have to stop the clock every time the ball went out of play or gameplay stopped, this caused his first matches to last over two hours, until he was informed of the rules. Philc TECI 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for this story, or is it just more bashing? --LarryMac 13:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No I have a book called the history of football, It explains conclusovely the history of football. Its not bashing a lot of mistkes were made by the US, but back in ol' blighty (england) some people screwed the rules up so bad, it turned into rugby. But the fact was a lot of football was forced upon the american when people saw how profitibale new york cosmos was, playing in front of capacity crowds every week, so everyone dived in, only to find that still new york was the only profitable team. So football teams popped up everywhere, often moving within a few years, and after about a decade the whole thing collapsed. The MSL has sought to start again, avoiding the mistakes of the past. Philc  TECI 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To counter an unsigned comment above, as an American, I think it's crazy that soccer just lets the clock run and then has the ref add stoppage time at the end rather than simply stop the clock when the ball is not in play. Shouldn't everyone know exactly how much time is left? And doesn't giving the ref the power to end the game at his discretion lead to abuses of authority, or at least accusations of such? -- Mwalcoff 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here in the US, most sports that have time use clocks that stop. That includes American football, basketball, hockey, lacrosse, water polo and lots of others. Also note that American sports clocks show how much time is left to play, not how much is used up. And they don't show time for the whole game, just the current quarter, period or half. For example, in football (soccer), the clock starts at 0:00 and goes to 45:00 at halftime, then continues to 90:00 at the end. In American football, the clock starts at 15:00 and goes down to 0:00 at the end of the first quarter, then re-sets to 15:00 for the second quarter, etc. (Side note: In professional basketball, when the time is less than one minute, the clock must show time remaining down to 1/10 of a second, such as 0:45.8.) ... However, my personal preference is baseball, which thankfully has no clock at all. — Michael J 05:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In hockey, it actually depends on the rules. North American leagues use rundown timers and international leagues use runup timers.  Strange huh?  What's stranger is that goals and penalties still count minutes into play.  --ColourBurst 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose you mean ice hockey. Stop stealing names. DirkvdM 06:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Stealing names? Which version of hockey do you suggest is the "correct" one? --Optichan 15:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The original. Well, more correctly, it's not a matter of which game is correct, but which name. DirkvdM 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was using the context of the poster I replied to. --ColourBurst 04:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong but the original hockey is the one played on grass, surely. Ice hockey was an offshoot for colder places.


 * American football's got all sorts of odd rules about when the clock stops and when it starts again. This makes the last five minutes of a close game as much a matter of playing the clock as playing the ball, and means that the last 15-minute quarter can take an hour or longer. --Serie 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Its quite a new thing to put a board up saying how much injury-time there will be. Before the referee gave no clue. It added to the suspense in my view. You didnt know if this was the last attack or whether there were still a couple of minutes to go. And yes, the downside was the potential for abuse. Jameswilson 23:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Since people on wikipedia know a lot about copyright stuff
Hi, so there's a video game that has songs, and people have made midis of the songs. Now the midis are based on the songs, but they are not the exact songs in the game. I was wanting to use one of these. So I am wondering, are the midis that immitate a copyrighted song also copyrighted. I emailed the site owner a ton of times and they won't even answer. But people on wikipedia know a lot about copyright, so I'm sure someone does. Are these midis legal to freely distribute and are they free enough to be used on something commercial? DyslexicEditor 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You really oughta ask this one over at Reference desk/Humanities, I think. In short, though: if you can clearly recognize the original song by listening to the midi tune, yeah, it's a copyright infringement. It can get more complex than that, but that's what it boils down to, pretty much. Perhaps more importantly, even if you can't recognize the original song and thus the MIDI file in question isn't about to become evidence in a copyright infringement case, you still can't just use them, because then you would be infringing on the copyright of the guy who created the MIDI file. -- Captain Disdain 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to add to the fun-- Some game tunes are actually in the public domain (I'm thinking some of the music from Tetris, "Korobeiniki" or "Korebuska" depending on who is naming that tune). But even if the tune itself is in the public domain, the interpretation of the tune by the person recording the MIDI file also has a copyright, as Captain Disdain has pointed out.  If it isn't a public domain tune, then the creator of the unauthorized MIDI file doesn't have a copyright in his or her interpretation, becuase he/she created an infringing "derivative work."  So if you were to use those files even with the creator's permission, you too would be infringing the game company's copyright.  Short answer: bad idea to use these MIDI files without the permission of whoever or whatever holds the copyright.  It would be better to make your own sound files for the project (or pay someone to do it.) And I should add, you don't even have to "clearly recognize" the song, copying even a few notes has been found to be infringement if the original source can be identified. Crypticfirefly 04:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On being the last person alive in the country...
Supposing tonight a freak virus breaks loose and kills everyone in the country except you. No buildings or anything have been destroyed,so the water,power and things are still working at the moment,just everyone else is dead.How long would you be able to survive for and what would be the most important...or exciting things to do first?

Sleep tight... 88.106.195.245 22:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Lemon

Depends on what country you live in and what exactly the cause is. If the virus can be dealt with, you might get lucky and be picked up by some rescue crew from another country. For instance if you live in Denmark, maybe some German scientists or army crew would go into the country.

The movie 28 Days Later describes what you say except for one little detail....

However, my fellow Wikipedians, I would like to grab this unique opportunity to ask for a film : there is a film in which a black man in the USA, probably New York, finds the complete city deserted for no obvious reason. Later he meets one other person : a white woman. The plot is interesting as one could say their relationship would never have begun under normal circumstances. The movie is in black and white. Please tell me the title. Evilbu 22:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Other than going totally insane after a while from lack of companionship, you should live a normal life. Eventually the water and power systems will fail, so you won't be able to rely on them to keep you going, you'll have to learn how to hunt and how to grow your own crops, but other than that, there's no reason why you shouldn't live.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So many things... ---Proficient 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are literally the last person in the world (not just the country), you would probably kill yourself by the time (or shortly after) the water/power systems fail. Five or ten years, I'd guess. zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Step one: hold on to your glasses. --Cam 01:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See also the New Zealand film (and book) The Quiet Earth in which the entire human race is wiped out except a few people. --Canley 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zafiroblue, five years until the water/power systems fail? That would be almost instant if there is no-one operating them (or do they have built-in failsafe systems to prevent this? I wouldn't be surprised given the importance). I'll assume it's not limited to one country, but everyone on Earth died for whatever reason (what are you suggesting - a virus without a passport?). Then you're in a basic survival situation, with the advantage that shops will still have shitloads of tinned food and water, more than you could ever need in a lifetime. So make sure you always carry a tin opener. :) But the stocks in one city would probably be enough, so you wouldn't need to go from place to place (although that should not be a problem if you know how to operate an unattended petrol station). Other than that, you'd probably get bored to death, like Zoe said. I once saw something like this in a film, where the survivor regularly went to the movies (watching Woodstock) for entertainment. I don't remember if the film made it clear where he got the power to operate the projector. But if you've got enough time on your hands, all the tools and stuff you might want and a bit of a brain you could figure something out. And that's probably what you would dedicate your time to - getting something off the ground, building your own little 'society', like a Robinson Crusoe. And you'd have something to protect it against, because animals would start to take back the cities. Including some predators.
 * On the upside, climate change would be kept to a minimum. :) Then again, that minimum might still have a big impact, so you'd have to take that into account - move away from coastal areas, for example, and build hurricane-proof shelters. DirkvdM 07:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * With all those rotting bodies around, you wouldn't want to hang around in the city for very long.--Shantavira 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that many of the problems that arise in water/power arise from people using them. If there are (basically) no demands on the power system/water, what would cause it to fail? (Thunder/snow-storms, perhaps, would knock over lines, but that's only for a limited area; you could always bike to another location. Or drive, even: once you figure out how to hotwire a car, or find one with keys, they all have gas in them!) To be honest, though, I think I'm basing most of this on Earth Abides, which may not be correct scientifically. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Are you serious? Do you think power plants run themselves? We might build a society in which that is the case, but that certainly hasn't been done yet. DirkvdM 06:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Solar and wind plants pretty much run themselves, and hydroelectric plants come close. Nuclear power plants can keep running on automatic for between three and five years, assuming that either it's idling, or some other power plant is adjusting for changes in load.  Coal plants will stop running within a day or two, and natural gas plants will stop when the gas stops flowing.  With everyone dead, the loads on the system become predictable enough that the computers can usually handle it all -- no more overloads because everyone on the east coast turned up their A/C.  Overall, I'd expect large-scale distribution to fail quickly as individual parts fail, but on the scale of individual power companies, many will continue running for years. --Serie 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So nobody has an idea about that black and white film dealing with this?Evilbu 12:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do actually: The World, the Flesh and the Devil (1959)... starring Harry Belafonte. --Canley 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Canley, thanks, that is quite certainly what I was looking for. Did you find it a good movie? I saw it once, but didn't get to see the end, and have regretted doing so ever since. For giving me the title, you have my undying gratitude.


 * As for water systems, some would last quite a while, such as if already purified water is stored in a water tower and gravity fed into taps. This would last until the water tower was drained.  If people died with taps left on, that could be fairly quickly.  Also, in northern climates a few water mains break every winter (apparently they aren't buried deep enough to avoid freezing).  With nobody to bypass those mains the water would all drain out of the system fairly quickly.  Automatic timed watering systems would also drain the water. Many other water systems rely on electrical pumps, so would fail almost immediately.  Also note that once pressure started to drop, the water could become contaminated, so should be boiled before drinking any. StuRat 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Water in water heaters would last until they rusted out, which might be decades. The water might be rather rusty towards the end of the process, though.  Water in plastic bottles would become unsuitable for drinking in a just a few years due to chemicals leaching out of the plastic.  Water in glass bottles could last forever, unless the cap is made of something that would deteriorate.  If I were the sole survivor, I would go claim a water tower or two, shut off the water to the system, and use the water from taps near the base.  StuRat 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It also would be wise to claim a farm, and keep enough of it operational to supply your food needs. This requires some foresight, though, as food in cans would last for decades, but eventually it would become unable to meet your nutritional needs.  If you waited until then, however, the farms would all be in ruins and the crops and animals all gone wild or dead. I don't think power systems would last long, but you could use generators and gasoline siphoned from cars or gas stations to provide enough for your personal needs.  You would also need to stay armed against packs of dogs or other dangers. StuRat 13:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for shelter, I would find a house with lots of woodburning stoves as a heat source. A house might last for decades with minimal maintenance.  In the long run, I would expect office buildings to last longer, but there would be no easy way to heat them. Perhaps you could retrofit one with a woodburning stove, but it wouldn't be easy. StuRat 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Last person alive in the country? Drive to another country after collecting a truck load of money.

Last person alive in the world? Might want to go around and collect enough solar panels to satisfy your electric needs, along with a lifetime supply of new (no acid inside) storage batteries and acid to fill them, and a dc to ac inverter. Perhaps help yourself to a survivalist's lair with a well, fireplaces, and a woodburning stove. A well or rain-fed cistern could supply water. An outhouse can be easily built to handle the world's small sewage disposal needs. A garden and fruit trees and a few animals (think dairy goats, not cows) and chickens could supply food. Gasoline and diesel will gum up and it is impractical to produce your own, so collect a lifetime of supplies while vehicles are driveable and roads haven't crumbled and been overgrown by trees. Raid hardware stores, building stores, farm supply stores, museums (your very own art collection can include anything.) Electronics stores (what is the shelf life of a computer? I have seen 20 year old used computers still work.) Fossil and nuclear power plants would trip offline in a few days at most. Small hydroelectric plants could be easily restarted generating, but powerlines will trip offline when storms pass through and stay off. Perhaps find a country place with a creek and a micro-hydro plant which could supply electricity for an extended period, not too far from a city where things could be obtained. A woodburning stove can fry or bake any food. I suppose that alternatively a city place could be equipped qith enough solar panels to be liveable for a few years. Canned food will be inedible in a very few years. Flour, rice, cornmeal, butter, shortning, etc will decay in a very few years unless kept in a deep freeze, as will manufactured food. Frozen food would last years in a deepfreeze. Sugar will last many years unless bugs or animals get to it. Expect lots of rats and mice unless predators increase in number. No need to seek out companion animals; dogs and cats would quickly find YOU. Batteries (of the alkaline variety) have a shelflife of several years, but batteries can be made from 19th century recipes if a supply of copper, zinc, acid, etc is obtained before travel becomes next to impossible. If you are healthy and do not require blood pressure medicine, insulin, etc you might live until the first serious illness or injury occurs. A camping supply store could provide a lifetime supply of water-purifying equipment. A load of books, cds, dvds and computer games might ward off boredom(see electric supply, above). Is it possible to completely download Wikipedia? Is it possible to download a meaningful amount of the worldwide web content? What would be the failure mode and speed of failure of the web in this apocalypse scenario? Lack of human contact and the realization that (human) history is OVER, making any accomplishments pointless would drive most people mad after a while. A radio sos beacon directed to space could offer some small hope of rescue. Religion might offer some comfort. Edison 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Listening a song backwards
How can I in MS windows?


 * Maybe you can record the song onto one of the various audio editing programs available (some of which are freeware) and mess around with it there. --Proficient 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

win 95 had a program in it that could record and reverse, very entertaining, try Led Zep's Staireway to heaven, it does say SATAN over and over hahah

I suggest the program "Audacity", which is freeware and easy to us. --Sturgeonman 22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

MSN Emoticon Stored?
In MSN Messenger for Windows XP when someone sends you an emoticon and you right-click on it to add it, in what folder does the saved emoticon save into?--Jamesino 23:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They are saved as .dat files in a folder "C:\Documents and Settings\(your username)\Application Data\Microsoft\MSN Messenger\(numbered folder for your Passport account)\CustomEmoticons". --Canley 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way that I can edit them, using for example, ImageReady of Adobe Photoshop?--Jamesino 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the emoticons are GIFs with a .dat extension, so you may be able to change the file extension to .gif and they should open in an image editing program. --Canley 23:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Any instructions on how I can change it to GIF's? I can't seem to open them in anything except internet explorer and notepad. --Jamesino 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They already are GIFs. Their MIME type is image/gif, so depending on your image viewer, it should be able to open them as-is. If not, just change the extension to gif. --Optichan 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember that, in order to change the extension, you need to show extensions in Explorer (by default they're hidden). Tools -> Folder Options -> View, uncheck "hide extensions for known file types". &mdash; QuantumEleven 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless the .dat extension is registered with some program, it should be viewable already. But I do recommend showing extensions. It's one of the first things I do when I use a new computer. --Optichan 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

webcam support for mac
Hello, I know msn doesn't do support for Mac OSX for webcams and have so installed Mercury Messanger. Are there any other supported messenger programs that cater for Mac webcams?--russ 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, there's iChat, but were you after MSN compatibility? You can connect to MSN through Jabber, there are some links on the article which explain how. --Canley 01:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)