Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 October 17

=October 17=

the missing Y in citibank
I am searching for the Y in citibank. Citybank itself says:


 * "1976 - The First National City Corporation holding company changes its name to Citicorp to better suit its global businesses."
 * Source: Citigroup Website

I suppose they refer to the shortening of the name and dropping of "national" as better suiting, as i can not conceive how the y>i-change should make any change in citicorps global businesses.

But really: Where is the Y and for what reason was it dropped ? Thanks very much. --  ExpImp talk con 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tigers
I want to know if a full grown tiger can kill and eat a water buffalo. I know that it takes at least 2 to 3 lions to take down a water buffalo but since the tiger hunts alone can it take down a buffalo by itself?
 * Since there are only 300 lions left in one forest in water buffalo territory perhaps you are thinking of African lions eating Cape buffalo which do not live in tiger territory? Rmhermen 00:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the film based on Max Havelaar, there is a scene of a tiger attacking a water buffalo and getting disemboweled. Of course that's a film, but the book is based on a true story and if it describes this, that sort of thing probably happened. If a tiger cna get it's jaws around the buffalo's throat, the buffalo is as good as dead, but it has to get past the horns first. So the coorect answer would probably be "yes, but it will only do so if it can't find easier food". DirkvdM 07:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

first college football game
In 1860's, there were two teams from New Jersey that played the first ever college football game. What schools were they?

Your answer is here. -THB 03:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Grangsvild joke article"
I was curious: does anyone know how long the Grangsvild article lasted on Wikipedia before deletion? E Liquere 03:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the records, it was created on the 27 April this year and deleted on the 2 October. Warofdreams talk 12:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Help...
I accidentally stumbled across a child porno site at a web adress I will not disclose. I alerted Yahoo! and Google that thier search engines were dredging up this page, and filed an online complaint with the FBI detailing exactly when, where, and how I happened across the site. I am still disturbed by the content, so I have two questions to ask:


 * Is there anything else I can do about this? Anyone I can notifiy I have not notified, any other reports I should have filed, anything along those lines?

I am litterally beside myself over this, to the point where I feel that even reconciliation from the church couldn't forgive me for finding this site. Anything you could recommend or suggest would be apreciated. Thanks. --The anonomous usual
 * I am going to get in trouble for finding the site? I do not want to go to jail, and I know that possession of kiddie porn in the US is a Federal Offense, so I am concerned that I could be arrested and/or prosecuted, and I know from watching CourtTV that even though I deleted absolutlely everything regarding that site and its contents a certified computer guy could raise the content again easily.


 * Quite frankly, that is not really going to help if the Feds really want to find out what you have been looking at previously. Besides, if it was an innocent mistake, covering his tracks shouldn't be a priority.


 * If things went down as you have explained, you have nothing to worry about. No-one is going to arrest you over a single, accidental (brief, i would presume?) visit to a single kiddie porn site. For some perspective, read about Operation Ore and Operation Avalanche. These people gave credit card information to subscribe to child porn sites and, in the US, only "100 people were charged from the 35,000 US access records available". So if the US authorities don't have the resources or inclination to go after them, you have nothing to worry about.


 * However, this is all assuming you are being entirely honest in your description of your situation and that the authorities have no other, related or unrelated interest in you. If there is more to it than you have explained, then who knows when they could come knocking on your door...  Rockpock e  t  07:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasnt suggesting he 'cover' his tracks as a solution to (not) being traced. I was suggesting he change to Firefox so he can remove any accidentally downloaded illegal or offensive material from his machine. Anyway Firefox is much faster on WP! 8-)--Light current 07:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point - experts can easily find what you've downloaded, Firefox or no Firefox. It's very difficult to delete files from your hard drive completely - a reformat might work, but I wouldn't know about that. --Richardrj talkemail 07:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd have to zero your hard drive which takes hours. The real incriminating evidence though is sitting in your ISP's server farm so the only way out of it is to burn down your ISP. Go quickly before the feds get you! just kidding --⁪froth T C  14:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Opera is even faster and more secure. Why not suggest it as well? ☢  Ҡ i∊ ff   ⌇  ↯  07:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you could get into serious trouble just by accidentally entering such websites. It's not like they're tracking your internet connection at all times, waiting for you to get into a website so they can arrest you. There are serious and long investigations to pursue the real people who make child porn. So as long as you don't keep those images in your hard disk and don't pass them around, I don't think you're getting into trouble. And yes, I would recommend getting a better web browser (such as Opera or Firefox), since they can safely clear your browsing history, although, like Richardrj said, if the feds really wanted they could find this stuff anyway. ☢  Ҡ i∊ ff   ⌇  ↯  07:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you really want to see whats on your computer, there is a shareware program called rescue.exe designed to undelete files. Its quite illuminating what can be recovered. 8-)--Light current 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, a normal removal of files really just deletes the links to them and frees the hard disk space. So the photos remain on your hard disk. But eventually, they will probably be overwritten. I'd actually advise you to keep on using the same browser for the time being, because that might be more likely to use the same hard disk space and overwrite the photos (although I am not sure - any other program might do that). The easiest way to be absolutely sure is to format the drive or partition the photos are stored on. Since that is most likely the one with your operating sustem on it, you'd have to format that, erasing the operating system. So you'll have to install it again.


 * If you have a very full hard drive, defragmenting might move some files around over the deleted data --⁪froth T C  14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the chances of you getting 'caught', they're probably minute. If the files are found and you've erased them (making them inaccessible for normal use) it would have to be a rather pathetic court that would still convict you. But then again, it's a controversial subject and in the Netherlands there was even a proposal to make the visiting of sites that have a terrorist technique manual illegal. Of course the law didn't pass (the ones who proposed it obviously didn't know what they were talking about) but it is an illustration of how paranoid people can be about these things. Having said this, I once stumbled on a child porn site too, years ago, and I haven't a clue on what hard disk those photos might be now because I use many different operating systems and make backups of them regularly. Damn, you've got me worrying now. :) DirkvdM 07:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: doing more, the one thing you can do is to look up the name and location of the server being used (through WHOIS), and a) alert the host to the illegal content, which is ultimately their legal responsibility, and b) contact local authorities in the region where the content is hosted. This is the fastest way to get the content off the net. Anchoress 08:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say you definitely did the wrong thing by reporting it. You basically told the authorities that you are in possession of child porn (on your hard drive). While I doubt that they will do anything about it, if you were running for political office against the party in charge, they might very well accuse you of possessing kiddie porn in the campaign. BTW, are you sure it was porn, and not just pics from a nudist colony ? Those would mostly be legal. As for shutting down the site, it likely is in some country with weak enforcement. If that site is shut down they will likely just open up a new site. Also, I doubt if enforcement of kiddie porn laws is much of a priority for the FBI now, considering the threat of terrorism. There might be an exception if some politician wants to show they are "tough on crime" so directs the FBI to make some easy arrests. Personally, I think the laws should be changed to ban the production and funding of kiddie porn, not the possession, to avoid your situation being illegal. StuRat 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Threat of terrorism? What threat of .... oh, you mean the percieved theat of terrorism. I was starting to get worried again. DirkvdM 19:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of material on the internet about reporting child porn; Just do a google search. It is a good idea to report it to get it removed. You think that the government will go after you for just reporting it? They even set up websites and toll free lines to allow people to report it (although I might be more inclined to report it to some other entity and let them report it to the government).


 * I can't offer much advice, except this:


 * "Seen through the eyes of compassion, there is no one to be disliked". Even people who create and host child porn. See Hagakure for the source of this quote. -- Chris 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you did find it by mistake and then reported it, the chances are that IF ( and its a big IF) you end up in court or any sort of trouble with the police it will take about 5 mins for any qualified computer expert to find out that you geunienly stumbled across it whislt looking for somthing legal and above board. Your internet service provider will back you up here as they will have a record of precisly how long you were on the site and what you did. If you only looked at pictures before throwing up and didn't do any more (I.E. downloading a film and watching it)then your borwser will delete all the information about after the set period (MS Internet Explore and Mozilla Firefox defualt:30 days) I very much doubt that your situation IS illegal in the first place no matter what country you are in. Nudist colony? Children at a nudist colony? Be serrious. They are not even close, there is yawning gulf between the two. From what I understand of your situation, your in the right and you have done the honest thing by reporting it and trying to get somthing done, legally you are in a strong position. Basically you've no need to worry unless you went back for more. -- AMX 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)AMX


 * Yes, there are family nudist camps. And the law says that ANY possession of child porn is illegal, it really doesn't matter if it was accidental or not, the law makes no exception for that. StuRat 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * AMX is right. You did everything you could to get rid of the site. Prosecuting you for trying to put down a kiddie porn site would make running such sites too easy. No one could report them, because they'd have to see its contents before being able to report it. If everything is as you described, I see reason you should worry. Run the site past Alexa to see if you can get details on their ISP to get it shut down. -- 131.211.210.17 11:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to consider the motivations of prosecutors. Many don't actually want to prevent crime, as that would put them out of business.  Instead, they want to APPEAR to be working to prevent crime, at the lowest possible cost.  Convicting somebody who admitted to having kiddie porn on their computer is the easiest and cheapest way to accomplish this. StuRat 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd say that reporting the site to the authorities immediately is among the wisest and most ethical things to do in this instance. Use whatever software the techs recommend to detect and delete any files from your computer and keep a record of the law enforcement reports. I don't think it's necessary to remove all ghostly traces of such files from your hard drive - in the very unlikely case you get accused of misconduct it's probably sufficient to prove that you alerted law enforcement and didn't collect the images for your own use.  Durova  16:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, StuRat, about the workings of those in power and politics, but I still don't think that such a small case will land any1 in trouble with the law. Further more as I said before, if it does go to court it will take about 5 mins for any computer professional to find out that you looked at the site, realised what it is , became horrified and reported. Somthing which will make any prosecuter look very stupid. Hence I am willing to bet that nothing will come of it in that regard and I offer this advice to "The anonomous usual"; go to church/confessional/whatever it is you feel you need to do to be absolved and forget about it, you did the honest thing and more. On second thoughts it might be very safe to confide in the clergy as around 60% of them are kiddie-fiddlers - thats my opinion based on current and past affairs so I am willing to retract it for libel reasons. --AMX 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)AMX


 * I have to agree with some of StuRat's points above - but first, let's look at the original pleas for help 1)He asks if there is anything else he can do(re notifying the authorities), and 2)Is he going to get into trouble for finding the site?) Answer 1) No, he seems to have done everything any like-minded individual could have done, and Answer 2) Yes, if his crime is discovered. The US and UK Laws on this matter have very cleverly incorporated the act of making an obscene photograph involving children as including the word 'virtual'. So once the image has been called down from the internet and seen on screen, whether deliberately or accidentally, the crime has already been committed. And no amount of deletion, overwriting or other cover-up attempts, is going to turn the clock back to a time before the crime was committed. Whether or not the crime is ever ultimately uncovered by the authorities is immaterial and irrelevant. As an aside, even if it isn't uncovered by the authorities, the crime (and the image seen in its commissioning) are stored indelibly for all time coming (before death) in his brain. So he is already suffering a life-sentence for his crime. Cruel? Unfair? Appropriate? Fitting? Deserved? Maybe. But in this particular area of the law, we have entered the Witchburning era all over again i.e. no legislator is ever going to campaign for the reconstruction of those badly drafted child crime laws under discussion here (have those Witchburning laws ever been repealed by the way?) The problem here as I see it (and so I think does StuRat) is that internet crime of the nature under discussion is always focused for wider effect on the end-user rather than the real maker/distributor. Why? Because of the indelibility of the end-user's electronic fingerprint. I believe that if the limited political, policing and prosecuting agencies were to change and apply the law and the political/prosecutorial, and judicial approach to it (fat chance), and statutorily re-define the difference between making(as in filming, videoing, recording, editing, distributing, selling, copying to other media etc. etc., as opposed to making as in seeing an offensive image on screen, those limited resources could be far more effectively used in attacking and halting this heinous and unforgiveable crime of perpetrating the commissioning of and profiteering by the production and distribution of internet (and hopefully other) child crime. But hey, what politician is at this late stage going to stand up and say that whilst watching child crime on the web is wrong, it isn't so wrong that we can now decriminalise it? I rest my case. It isn't going to happen. It seems to me that hard-drive crime is forever to be punished exceedingly severely, whilst mere hard-core crime is more easily covered and therefore more readily forgiven.

Thank You all for your suggestions. I must remember to come back here more often. With luck, my next visit will be under better circumstances. --The anonomous usual

Venom
A recent question on the science desk prompted me to think-which organism (bird insect animal fish etc) has the deadliest venom, and which venom is the most destructive to living tissue (There is a difference I believe).203.122.84.26 07:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out these deadly beauties for some candidates. However, its widely said that poison arrow frogs or Dendrobatidae produce the most potent neurotoxins. Batrachotoxin, produced by Phyllobates terriblis (Golden Poison Frog) is the pick of the bunch, beating curare and pufferfish toxins hands down. I'm not sure these qualify as venom, though. (edit) actually they don't - there is a difference between a poison and a venom, apparently.  Rockpock e  t  07:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact there's a difference between venom and poison, there's also a difference in how either affect different people or organisms. What can be lethal to a rhino can be nothing to a human and viceversa. If you want to know what is deadliest, you need to be more specific and ask "to who?" and "in what dosage?". - 131.211.210.17 10:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm asking about the effect on humans, and in the biggest does you can get! (Also, not specifacially looking for 'deadliest', i'm also interestied in the most 'destructive' (which can still be deadly).203.122.81.222 11:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Saw something on the discovery channel or something where there's some horned fish or snail or something that will kill you within seconds if you touch it --⁪froth T C  14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

loosening elastic waistbands
Friends, due to medical problem, i have been advised to wear loose pants. So I purchase elastic baistbanded pants. Do please suggest me as to how to loosen the elasticity in the waistband without any tailor work.Hoping to hear from u wikipedians. bye. Signed: Kutuwa.


 * You can't, unless you cut the elastic. One option might be to get waist extenders, which can add an inch by supplying a button and a button hole, connected together, about an inch apart.  Another option is to buy some bigger pants. StuRat 12:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * THat answer sounds familiar ro me 8-)--Light current 13:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Elastic that is consistently stretched will loosen. Either stretch them manually or mount them on a form with wider dimensions than your waist. Anchoress 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A clarification is needed here. Say you have an elastic waist that varies from 30-40 inches (and is quite tight at 40).  You can damage the elastic in many ways, like exposure to chemicals, heat, or UV light, or by over-stretching it.  This will not change it to a 40-50 inch waist, but perhaps a 35-40 inch waist, with it being less tight at 40.  If you manage to completely destroy the elastic, you will then just have a 40 inch waist pair of pants.  There is a disadvantage that, when this happens, the elastic becomes "crunchy", which is unpleasant.  You might want to remove the elastic, instead. StuRat 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

edison
i posted a question on suicide and i saw that the guy who cud understand what am actaully goin thru is edison.how can i get in touch with him?i need some advice

You post a message on his talk page: User_talk:Edison

user:amists
 * Most of us have gone through suicidal phases. It comes with the territory of being a thinker.  If you are naturally low on serotonin, you dwell on a lot of things, some of which lead you to dark conclusions.  If you are naturally high on this, you have wonderful full-colour dreams, and you are too happy to think!  For most people, the difference between one state and another, is a simple little pill, which you can get from a doctor. --Zeizmic 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that make the body produce even less serotonin and thus make you an addict? If not, I'm interrested. DirkvdM 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sticking your hand in a Venus Flytrap
What would it feel like to put one's hand in a Venus Flytrap and trigger it so it closes on your hand. What if you left it there for a bit? Yuck! --user:amists


 * It wouldn't be a problem, it might even tickle. The "spikes" that hold the fly in wouldn't hurt your hand, and the digestive juices would take hours to damage your finger. StuRat 12:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks stu!


 * You can barely feel it at all,I've done it,the "Spikes" are not sharp.(hotclaws**== 14:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Human skin is very resistent to all sorts of injury. It's basically flexible armor. A Venus fly trap shouldn't pose any threat, if you have a healthy array of skin. Spill some concentrated hydrochloric acid on your hand and it's limitations are revealed, though. -- Chris 17:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yuck --⁪froth T C  18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suspect the digestive juices are similar in strength to the normal hydrogen peroxide solution you buy in a store. That is, you wouldn't even notice them unless they touched a cut or hangnail. StuRat 21:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was yucking at the idea of a carnivorous plant, not particularly putting my hand in it. That's the kind of plant I'd shoot instead of prune :p --⁪froth T C  14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not me. If I had a plant that would kill off any flies that got into the house, that would be a good thing. StuRat 15:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Stock exchanges in India
I need the name and venue  of all stock exchanging centres situated in India,so please can you provide it to me?


 * Category:Stock exchanges in Asia might be of use to you. Also have a look at Economy of India.  By the way, next time you ask a question, please give it a title and sign your post by typing --~ .  --Richardrj talkemail 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps
Why are maps so friggin' expensive? All I want is a 6X4 world map, no frame or anything else, and most of the places I look, it costs $100.00. Mongol Man 11:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think they are always so expensive. National Geographic magazine regularly gives away free maps, for example.  You can also do a Google image search for "world map" and find hundreds of thousands which you can print for free.  If you want a nice laminated map, it might cost a bit, but shouldn't be that much. StuRat 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The big 6-foot school maps are printed on special glossy stock, most likely laminated, and produced in small volume. This adds up to big money! --Zeizmic 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just want a regular paper map, no laminated cover or anything. The problem is, my printer, like most other people's, only prints 1 sheet of paper at a time. I cannot print a single 6X4 sheet of paper. Mongol Man 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're putting more energy into complaining than looking for online sources. This, for instance, has large maps from about £30, which is about $50 in your dodgy currency. I'm sure there are more sources. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * 6x4 what? DirkvdM 19:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought they meant inches, but apparently they mean feet. In that case, $100 doesn't seem so high.  They can always print it out in sections and tape them together, if they really can't afford to buy one. StuRat 21:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I paid more than that for a map that was about 6 by 4 inches. :) But that was a Janssonius/Mercator map from 1624 in fine condition, and actually a very good deal, if you're into that kind of thing. It cost me almost as much just to have it framed though. But seen as an investement, it's almost free, given that I could sell it for as much or nearly as much as I bought it for. --BluePlatypus 00:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In a city of any size a lithography or print shop where you could bring in the file and have them print it for you.  Durova  16:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of web searching, I suggest that 6x4 feet is simply somewhat larger than most people want for a world map, which raises the price. At http://www.maps.com I find a National Geographic 69x48 inch map for $44.95 US, which is better than $100, at least. At Federal Publications Inc. (in Canada) I find a range of world maps including a similar-size National Geographic map at $50 Canadian, and a 39x56 inch Michelin map at $15 Canadian. Rand McNally similarly has a range of world maps including what may be the same Michelin map at $12 US, and their own 50x32 inch one at under $5 (but folded, not rolled). --Anonymous, 01:10 UTC, October 19, 2006

Who profits from meteorites?
This article got me wondering who owns meteorites. I guess it would depend on the jurisdiction but if a meteorite was found in someone's field, would it be their's to sell? Or how are these things worked out otherwise? Dismas|(talk) 12:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Different countries have different rules. In Canada, the property owner owns the meteorite.  If you leased the field with the express contract that you got to keep found meteorites, then they are yours.  --Zeizmic 12:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the stone is undergroud, in France, there's a saying that under some feet it belongs to the State. -- DLL .. T 18:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
What is the difference between the term 'world' and 'universe'? A student of mine once asked this to me. i did reply, but i would like to know it more correctly and precisely. say with a proper definition and explanation. eager for the reply.....happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukanyatrivady (talk • contribs)


 * Generally, World = Earth, Universe = everything. See World and Universe. World can mean Universe, but that's less common. Dictionary.com helps as well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In some contexts the words are used interchangeably to refer to "everything material around us". In other contexts, world refers to earth and universe refers to all the known and unknown galaxies, stars, and matter in space, including our earth and solar system. alteripse 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An old dictionary at my grade school defined "universe" as the Milky Way Galaxy which annoyed the hell out of me. I would ask (rhetorically and only to myself), "So what the hell is all the stuff outside the Wilky Way Galaxy?Edison 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A small, mostly-irrelevant point: the word 'Universe' is of course formed from the word 'verse', i.e. words, language, speech.


 * People love to talk about 'the universe' as if their speech places some real restrictions on what actually occurs. For the most part, I would say that such conjecture, whether by respected scientists, or respected priests, or unqualified quacks, are vain delusions at best, lies and deceit at worst. -- Chris 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it doesn't. Universe comes from the Latin universum, which, according to dictionary.com, derives from "use of neut. of ūniversus entire, all, lit., turned into one, equiv. to ūni- uni- + versus (ptp. of vertere to turn)] ".  See folk etymology.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting corollary to this is for example 'finding your place in the world' or 'for all the money in the world'. Would you use this expression if the galaxy or universe was your backyard and you are an interstellar traveller?

Women Surgeons
Once a male doctor has trained and qualified to become a surgeon he drops the title of "Doctor" in favour of "Mister" (or so seems to be the case here in Australia). I'm curious as to what general title a female surgeon goes by once reaching that same level?Intervale 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe its 'Miss' according to a programme I saw on TV about a female surgeon. OTOH, that could have been coz she wasnt married.--Light current 13:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A friend tells me that it is traditional, in the UK at least, for female surgeons to be called "Miss", whether or not they are married. Warofdreams talk 13:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can anyone tell me why that is so? IMHO "Doctor" is a more prestigious title than "Mister" or "Miss", at least because it is an academic rank that has to be actually earned, whereas pretty much everyone can be called "Mister" or "Miss". J I P  | Talk 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's because, in times of yore, surgeons weren't doctors - they were barbers. The physicians (the doctors) didn't want a bunch of knifewielding nutters being confused with their scientifically-valid leechings, purgings, and potions.  So physicians were Doctor but old Sweeny Todd was a Mister. Davy the Dolite 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought they were butchers! Some people say they still are! Or is that dentists?--Light current 23:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In a more modern context, it's professional one-upmanship for the surgeons to demonstrate that they're not mere drug-pedallers. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a lot of surgeons reputedly have massive egos (not entirely unjustified, mind you, given the skill and self-confidence required to do what they do).  --Robert Merkel 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think all persons skilled in surgery should be called 'surgeons' (as in Dental surgeon). All other medical 'doctors' should be called physicians. THe word 'doctor' I believe means a teacher.--Light current


 * Worth mentioning that unless a British physician takes a doctoral degree of some kind such as M.D. or Ph.D., etc, he/she uses the medical title of Doctor as a courtey one. In those circumstances the usual double degrees awarded to medical graduates are M.B., Ch.B. (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery). The usual qualification in the UK that would then be pursued by potential general surgeons would be FRCS (Fellow of The Royal College of Surgeons). Clearly, a budding gynaecologist would pursue a FRCG and/or FRC. Obst., but would still be addressed as surgeons i.e. Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms. or Doctor (their choice). Dentists by the way are usually awarded a B.D.S. sometimes followed by their University as in B.D.S. (St. Andrews), and are now, though since only very recently, also allowed to be addressed as Doctor, though very few as far as I am aware, do that here in Scotland. On the separate subject of Barbers acting as surgeons, it's worth mentioning that those activities account for the traditional Red and White Barber's pole (White Bandages on a Bloody Stump). 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
Is there a place on wikipedia that is more focused on trivia?--Filll 13:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * More than the reference desk? A lot of trivia comes up here. Warofdreams talk 13:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a page of Lists of trivia; but Wikipedia is not a repository of trivia. Howard Train 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sillypedia?--Light current 23:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Did you know Tintin (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Category:In popular culture.  Durova  16:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rope bridge
How are rope bridges constructed? How does one get the rope securely anchored on the other side of a gorge? The article on rope bridge (inca) does not help, thank you


 * The first rope always involves some crazy guy scaling the gorge, or some way to throw and hook a rope. --Zeizmic 14:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can attach a long string to an arrow and launch the arrow across the chasm. Then use the string to haul over the rope. If you try attaching rope to the arrow, you'll reduce its chances of making it across the gap. (Same would go for throwing a stone etc attached to string). --Dweller 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would always help if the people on the other side also wanted a bridge, so they could catch the rock tied to the string which pulls the little rope which pulls the big rope. I suppose that often you could scale the heights until the gorge was a small ditch higher up and climb down until you reached the other side, or go down the slope to the bottom and climb back up from the sea or whatever on the other side, if it is infeasible to go directly down, swim the croc infested river, and up the other side.Edison 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that it makes sense to get someone with a small rope across first, with which a thicker rope can be pulled across, and with that a thicker rope still, until you've got something strong enough to walk on. I once saw some old footage of how Pygmees got such a first rope across a river. They attached a strong rope to a high branch near the river, let a guy clib a tree further away, holding the other end, and jumping from the tree, swinging to the other side. The didn't quite meassure the length right, and the guy scoured his butt (is that the right expression?). DirkvdM 19:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is the right expression, as I have no idea what it means. StuRat 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that the former necessarily follows from the latter, but what about 'scraped his bottom', then? DirkvdM 19:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try "fell flat on his ass". StuRat 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he didn't (and had there been an ass, they might have sent that across). He did make it to the other side, but he had to pull in his legs but even that wasn't enough, so he, ehm, grated his behind? DirkvdM 07:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think whale hunting harpoons, fired from a canon, would be any excellent way to get the starter rope over to the other side. StuRat 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The question to the answer that I think you're asking is someone has to get across the hard way or else at another location. To put a rope bridge across a gorge, someone could climb down, swim across, and then climb up; or go 10 miles upriver and ford. -THB 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, of course, in modern times they could fly across in a helicopter and pull a rope with them. StuRat 01:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Modern navies encounter a similar challenge when they refuel at sea. The solution is to fire a "shot line" at the other vessel, which is basically a piece of string.  Then people at the other side haul over the heavier piece of line (rope) attached to it.  The effort is coordinated through a series of gestures with signal paddles.  The Incas probably used the equivalent of a shot line attached to an arrow, which is far faster and less expensive than any of the other speculations on this thread.  Durova  16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The questioner asks how the bridge is anchored. The article says that rope cables were secured to "stone anchors" or "pylons." Presumably, these were very heavy stones set in filled-in pits on either side of the gorge.  The rope cables might have been tied to these pylons but I would expect that they were probably woven around them.  Marco polo 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen them anchored to a very large tree. An alternative is to anchor it to a buried log (so it doesn't slide into the canyon" which is sometimes called a "dead man." A very big rock, which cannot possibly get moved by a bridge full of people, is another possibility.Edison 05:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Latin meaning for confidence
Does anybody know the Latin derviation for the word confidence? I have searched and searched the net but cannot seem to find it! Thankyou in advance for any replies! nena :)


 * [Origin: 1625–35; < L confīdere, equiv. to con- con- + fīdere to trust, akin to foedus; see confederate, fidelity], from dictionary.com --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * And the path was via French confidence from Latin confidentia, meaning "(self-)confidence", which comes from the verb confidere as described above. The Language reference desk is a better spot for this kind of question. --Lambiam Talk  15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tuna Fishing
I have heard that tuna's can become quite agitatated while being caught that their blood temperature can rise so high as to spoil the surrounding flesh which can render it unfit for comsumption. This in turn, as I am told, has led to the expression "tainted tuna". Just wondering if in fact this is indeed correct and if there is some reference to these statements.


 * 'Tain't so.Edison 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Though, tuna does have high levels of mercury. Kil  o • T  17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To measure their temperature, probably. DirkvdM 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been told by an experienced chef that this is the case with halibut; that they must be caught with care, respect, and tranquility, or else their meat is unpalatable. I wouldn't be surprised of this is the case with other fish, too. Generally, stressed-out animals produce stressed-out meat, which is probably not going to be as tender and delicious as it could be. -- Chris 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard this with turtles in turtle soup, they must be killed quickly or something they do spoils their flavor. Then again, they boil lobsters alive, wouldn't you expect that to cause a bit of stress ? StuRat 21:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I read (Cookwise by Shirley O. Corriher ISBN 0688102298) that it is important for the meat to be in a state of rigor mortis in order for it to have the best taste (this is true for both fish as well as cows and chickens). The mood of the animal at the time of death can adversly affect the rigor mortis, and lead to worst meat.  However this will not spoil the meat, it just won't taste as good. Jon513 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

But remember, that although you can tune a file system, you can't tuna fish. J I P | Talk 08:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Crash test marker
What's the story of the wheel-like symbol that can be seen on this happy man? Is there a name for it? I suppose it is used for easy tracking of different points, on for example a crash dummy, during a crash test, but is there an explanation for why it looks just like it does? Is it standardized, and if so, is that with or without the black border seen on one of the marks in the picture? —Bromskloss 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's used to make measurements of position from the high speed camera recordings of the crash. It is easier to measure than a finely drawn cross would be but is still measurable precisely.  I don't know the name of the mark but it is probably called soemthing like a target. RJFJR 15:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The pattern used to measure turbidity is very similar, by the way. —Bromskloss 16:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP's article on crash test dummies calls them "calibration marks". ---Sluzzelin 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. The article on Crash test dummy is far more appropriate to this context :P. Howard Train 21:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * LoL, that one slipped my attention, I was happy seeing a blue link (of course a purple one would have been even better). Thanks for pointing it out.---Sluzzelin 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the same symbol is used to denote a center of gravity (CG) point. I suspect that they were first used on crash dummies to show CGs, but then became used to show all critical points. StuRat 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's true. Didn't even think of that. —Bromskloss 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

financials
I will be doing some company financials. I was just wondering what that job entails and Is it hard to do with little or no experience?

139.142.184.65 16:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)kk


 * It depends on the size of the company. A public company would require the services of a CPA.  A small sole proprietorship or partnership might be handled by a beginner with a good book. RJFJR 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It will be difficult for you because a company that would hire someone with no experience to do their financials is likely quite lax in bookkeepping. -THB 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

FOOTBALL
Did Northern Island beet Spain the other day in a Euro 2008 qualifier. I know that Scotland beet France LOL but i think i heard that Spain was beeten by a, lets say, not so good team, as well...im i right? (also i know about England loosing to Croatia, if any one heard the joke on "have i got news for you" it was a good one LOL)--84.64.46.61 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I always turn bright red when somebody beets me. :-) StuRat 20:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They did beat Spain and, funny enough, this information can be found on the Northern Ireland national football team page...

They also beat Spain at the 1982 World Cup in Seville. It was a brilliant game from what I recall!Downunda 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can find all the results from Euro 2008 qualifying at 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying. -Elmer Clark 23:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the longest answer to a question asked at the reference desk ever?
--84.64.46.61 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * try querying a db dump? dab (&#5839;) 19:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WE are NOT DEAF!! Please dont shout. You may wake up some editors.--Light current 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Wha? DirkvdM 06:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Se! youve woken up Dirk now 8-)--Light current 12:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, at least we know he wasn't asleep at work, don't we ? :-) StuRat 01:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's in our brain that makes us addicted to world records ? Pure logic should say "I don't care!". -- DLL .. T 18:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Logic cannot explain why you are interested in Wikipedia but 6 billion other people aren't. The fact is people are interested in all manner of things both tangible and intangible - otherwise this Ref Desk would not exist.  Logic would say "Ignore that fact at your peril".   JackofOz 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A closed circuit where I can actively determine the amount of Hz
I am trying to find out the FPS of the eye. I need a power source, a lightbulb, some wiring, and something to control the amount of hertz by. Is there an easy way for doing this, putting the amount of Hz in the 12-30 region? That excludes manually using a dynamo and stuff, at least so far as I can see... any ideas on this? Very appreciated! 81.93.102.3 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Suspect you would be more likely to get a response to this over at the Science reference desk. --Richardrj talkemail 21:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming that by "amount of Hz" you mean the frequency; I'd suggest using an electric motor to drive something (eg a disc with a hole in it) that will obscure the lightbulb. Sit on the opposite side of this mechanism and use a rheostat to control the Hertzage. When the light stops flickering, you've got your result. Depending on what you're good at, you could alternatively write a computer program to simulate such a circuit by flashing the screen white-and-black. In pseudocode:


 * 1 DRAW a big white box
 * 2 WAIT n milliseconds
 * 3 DRAW a big black box
 * 4 WAIT n milliseconds
 * 5 GOTO 1


 * Make n the inverse of the frequency you want to test, multiplied by 1000. So to try 10 Hz, n should be 100 msHoward Train 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a note here, the flicker fusion threshold of the human eye is not an absolute measure, not even for the same person. It depends of several factors such as the luminosity of the light and ambient in question, where the light is being visible (the corners of the eye can perceive a much higher frequency than the center of vision), and even how tired you are. ☢  Ҡ i∊ ff   ⌇  ↯  22:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. No doubt that is the purpose of the questioners experiment.--Light current 23:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Build an episcotister.   Then ou can use an DC powered light. A bulb  for such study must not be a large incandescent one, because of its high thermal inertia, which will prevent it from going out during the very brief periods the current is off. Tachistoscopes used dc powered fluorescent tubes with electronic controls. Neon lamps were used in the early 20th century. Today, LEDs would be a possibility, because of their quick rise time. A signal generator, square or sine wqaves over the frequency range you are interested in. plus an amplifier which covers near-dc through audio frequencies, plus LEDs of a wavelength you wish to study, should do nicely.Edison 06:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't use your own eye if you have a family history of epilepsy, even if you've never shown symptoms :) --⁪froth T C  14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Excitement about the Veil
I notice that in the media in the UK, there is a lot of discussion about the Muslim veil, or "nikab" (sometimes spelled niqab). Previously, France and some other European countries went through this. Living in the US, I do not think anyone would care if someone wore a veil. I see women wearing veils all the time (which I find sort of sexy, myself). No one gives it a second thought. And why should we care? (although there was a lawsuit some years back when a Florida women wanted to appear veiled in her driver's license photo, if I am not mistaken). She lost her case, and an appeal as well, I think. However, if I am not mistaken, women cannot appear veiled in driver's license or passport photos in places like Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

Why do the Europeans worry about such a ridiculous thing? Who cares if they want to be veiled? Is this evidence of some sort of societal difference between the US and Europe? --Filll 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's something of a moral panic, and it's no accident that it's happening when British Labour Party politicians are jockeying for position in the wake of the forthcoming resignation of Tony Blair, with the politicians competing to see who can be the toughest. That said, in the wake of the London tube bombings (which, unlike 9-11, were conducted by home-grown terrorists) the British body-politic seems to have lost faith with its previous policy of multiculturalism.  The US is generally rather better about integrating immigrants (and their children) into general society (to the detriment, one might argue, of their language and culture and tradition).  The veil has become, clumsily, a rather arbitrary locus around which this discussion has condensed.  So really it's not about veils at all (veils that no-one seemed bothered about a month ago, and likely won't be bothered about in a month from now).  Politics in Britain (as elsewhere) has a nasty habit of hanging large and complex issues on such trivial hooks, perhaps in the vainglorious hope that if the "veil issue" can be resolved, the whole cultural relations issue (which has been a bubbling problem for ages, long before the tube bombings) might fall magically into place.  A similar (and similarly daft) discussion ensued in the dying phase of the last Conservative government, when they proclaimed all the country's ills were the doings of "single mothers", spamming the welfare state with their horrid feral sprogs.  This too was a serious discussion wrapped in baloney (this time about the family and crime and welfare).  The fundamental point is that politicians think we're thick, and can't discuss complex matters - so they over simplify it into a brain-morsel.  I have to go now, as myself and my fourteen veil-wearing ASBO-breaking children are going to spend a nice evening in drinking alcopops and watching Driller Killer which we've illegally downloaded off utube. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, first: It's not really a European issue. Most European countries haven't bothered to pass any laws on the matter, and it's not really being debated all over the place either. It's worth pointing out, though, that the French position has been somewhat misrepresented, in particular in the US. To understand it, you need to understand that the French are hardliners when it comes to separation of Church and State. So the main argument of the proponents on a "veil ban" in France, weren't talking about a ban on veils specifically, but rather a ban on the wearing of all religious symbols in public schools there. (That isn't to say there wasn't racist undertones to the debate, though). But there's really no pan-European consensus on what separation of C. and S. should mean in practical terms. While most Americans would find the French position on separation overly harsh, some Europeans would find the US position overly harsh. E.g. most Scandinavians have not considered separation of Church and State as necessary for freedom of religion as the Americans and French have. -Scandinavian countries have had constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion much longer than a constitutional separation of C&S. Norway still does not have a full separation. --BluePlatypus 00:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I, too, fail to see why Europeans feel that it should matter to anybody but the woman choosing to wear a veil that she is wearing a veil. Why do Europeans feel that it is anybody else's business? The United States, like France, mandates separation of church and state.  Yet we do not prohibit women from wearing veils in public schools or anywhere else.  It is such a restriction on personal freedom.  The principle, in the United States, behind separation of church and state is that no state body may establish or impose a favored religion.  Allowing Muslim students to wear a veil, especially when they are in the minority, certainly does not establish or impose Islam on the other students, so long as the other students are free not to wear a veil. To an American, the French rule about veils violates the separation of church and state, because the state intervened to ban a religious symbol in a way that made members of one religion uncomfortable and forced them to violate what they saw as the tenets of their religion in order to receive a state service.  Yes, I know that "all" religious symbols were banned, but somehow the only people affected by the ban seemed to be Muslims, since crucifix necklaces were ruled acceptable. While I am critical of many U.S. policies, I can't see what motivates European opposition to the veil other than bigotry and the idea that everybody must behave like the descendants of the people who lived in those countries 200 years ago.  Or is there something I am missing?  Marco polo 01:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools and Islamic veil controversy in France. Several points are missing in the debate here, but they're best described in the articles.---Sluzzelin 02:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's main criticism; that the ban affects certain religions more than others. Again, I'd urge not to extrapolate a French law to all of Europe. Most of Europe do not have any similar law. Nor is it any less controversial in most of Europe, or uncontroversial in France. That said, I'd be very careful about making the argument you're making: Public schools in the USA have dress codes as well, and in my experience (having attended public schools on both continents) they're not necessarily less strict than European ones. (Or to be perfectly honest, I felt I had a lot less personal freedom in the public US schools I attended.) --BluePlatypus 02:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When I listen to the BBC debates and UK politician statements about the veil, I just have to shake my head in amazement. There are many horrendous bigoted things about the US, and a lot of things that I think the US does wrong. But worrying about a woman wearing a veil or not just seems silly. There are all kinds of speeches being made about "these people do not want to be part of our way of life...blah blah blah". It just sounds sort of comical from the perspective of someone in the US. My impression is that even the big bad ugly Americans here could care less about such silliness.--Filll 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If I've understood correctly, the consternation is over the full-face-except-eyes veil, not the "headscarf"-type veil. If so, perhaps folk feel uneasy speaking to eyes... (seems a little Beckettian!) It was a complaint about a veiled teacher that triggered the hubbub, wasn't it...?  If so, I know I'd feel uneasy if my children were being taught by someone unwilling/unable to recognize the crucial role of facial gestures in communication...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not that Europeans worry about it so much. It's some Europeans and they're rather loud mouthed and the media love that kind of thing. DirkvdM 06:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is indeed about the face-covering veils. It started because Jack Straw said that he often asks women who come to talk to him 'face to face', who are wearing such facial coverings, if they will remove them for the discussion. He says this is ever since a woman wearing a face-covering veil remarked how much it meant to be able to talk to him face-to-face. He doesn't insist on it, he asks, because he feels it helps them both if he can read their face, as they read his. After he said this, there was a lot of furore. Later, a teacher got in trouble for wearing a veil when teaching, I believe, primary school children. Others were of the view that facial expressions are very important at this age. Around the same time, a woman was suspended from her job at an airline for refusing to comply with uniform codes by tucking a cross inside her top. Since the blowing up of all this stuff, there have been attacks and unveilings. These are clearly bad. This doesn't mean there is nothing to discuss. Skittle 10:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A UK point of view. Since Jack Straw said what he said I actually feel that he has said what alot of ordinary people want to say. It does seem to me that Muslim women are subjected to terrible double standards, not being allowed to show them selves and dress how they want BUT I can understand there reasons, if they chose to do it as a symbol of faith then let them, its a free country. The idea that "they come over here and do what they want and expect us to bow to their every demand and need 'becuase of their culture'" is held by very few people and most saidly of all it is popularised by the British press. --AMX 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)AMX


 * Before Americans get all preachy about the Europeans and their arguments over veils, let's remember that we Americans don't face the kind of issues they do. Muslims are now a huge minority in France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, etc., and while the vast majority are normal people just trying to make a living, enough of them are radical Islamists to make the European way of life seem threatened. Theo van Gogh was killed for insulting Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live under armed guard. Now a French guy who wrote a newspaper column critical of Islam is in hiding. There have been dozens of honor killings among Muslims in Europe. Ilan Halimi was tortured for three weeks by a group of Muslims in France while the other Muslims in the building did nothing. So many Europeans find their way of life under siege. I think the veil is just a visible symbol of this insecurity to latch on to. And let's face it -- the veil is a very striking thing. We're not talking about a hijab here -- we're talking about black veils that cover everything but the eyes. When I first saw a woman wearing the niqab, in Prague, I was somewhat frightened. My immediate thought was that someone who would go as far as to wear that is as dedicated as a cult member and would be the kind of person who would be willing to blow people up for a cause. Then again, if this was the time of the Crusades, and I saw a nun for the first time, I might think the same thing. -- Mwalcoff 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We are constantly told that Europe is drowning in Muslims and the US does not understand. Well a quick web search shows that Muslims form just under 3% of the UK population and over 2% of the US population. In some places, like communities in Michigan with a lot of Arab immigrants, or around Washington DC with a lot of African Americans, Muslims form a much larger fraction of the population. I live just outside DC, and I see women in Hijab or full veils constantly in the grocery and on the street. The US has not had just an occasional attack on one or two people like Europe has, but has been the target of attacks over and over for decades (Iranian embassy hostages, multiple other hostage dramas and beheadings, Lebanon barracks bombing, the Cole, the first world trade center attack in 93, 9/11 attacks, the African embassy attacks, etc). There were multiple fatwas issued by Bin Laden and others ordering all Muslims to kill Americans anywhere anytime. So I think that saying Europe has a bad situation and we do not understand is sort of a load of nonsense. However, even given that, if any politician in the US made a comment like Jack Straw did, their career would be over, as quick as you can say "macaca".--Filll 17:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure we're clear, the discussion is purely about niqab, not hijab. You may think a veil can be pretty, but I doubt you feel that about niqab. To wear a niqab when teaching small children would seem rather threatening to me; a hair-covering veil, not at all. Skittle 22:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd question the figures regarding the number of Muslims in the US and UK. The US doesn't keep official stats on religion. estimates on the number of Muslims in the US range from 1 million to 7 million, with most estimates in the lower end of that spectrum. So they percentage of Muslims is probably 3 or 4 times as high in the UK as it is in the US. I've never seen a niqab in the US, but I saw them in London. And there are undoubtedly more people susceptible to radical Islamist ideology among European Muslims than there are among American Muslims. I also doubt that an American politician would get in trouble for asking women to remove their niqabs in his office. -- Mwalcoff 02:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The US government might not keep official statistics on religion (although I am not so sure about that. The government keeps statistics on a lot of things). However, the figures I gave were from PRIVATE groups who made estimates for political purposes, and in the US a HUGE amount of money and effort goes into that. So the figures are probably not very far off. I have seen plenty of niqab/nikab in the US since I live in a part of the US that is probably 80% African American, and many many African Americans have converted to Islam over the last few decades. I have never seen a nikab in the UK, but I have seen them in the US. I do not think wearing a nikab while teaching small children is threatening, although I would be surprised if it happens very much, even in Saudi Arabia, considering the purposes of the nikab. An American politician might or might not get into trouble for saying something in private to a woman about her nikab, but I would not want to bet my political career on it. I can just about promise that an American politician making a statement in public like Jack Straw's would get in huge trouble, as much as if he had said something negative about Hispanics, or African Americans, or Jews, or women, or whites, or asians, or homosexuals. The political correctness police would tear the politician to shreds for that kind of comment. Just like when Jesse Jackson made a wisecrack about "hymietown". Even though it was said in private and supposedly as a joke, his career as a politician was over at that point. Done.--Filll 03:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I guarantee you that if an elementary-school in Paducah, Kentucky hired a teacher who wears a niqab, all hell would break loose. The reason we don't hear more criticism of Islam from American politicians is because Islam is not as pervasive of a presence in the US as it is in Europe, not because Americans love Islam. Remember, this is a country where Franklin Graham remains tremendously popular despite his attacks on Islam. When Ayaan Hirsi Ali was hounded out of the Netherlands, the U.S. government welcomed her to America. -- Mwalcoff 23:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I see niqab (sp.?), not just hijab, fairly often - and I live in the US. Vultur

Freedom of religion in the US
Every time I hear about the US having "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state", I am immediately reminded how, in practice, dominant Christianity is in that country. During the last half a century or so, mentions of God in official documents and statements have only increased, not decreased. Many US families seem to take weekly visits to the church for granted. Every time anything even remotely hints at poking fun at Christianity, picket groups arise from everywhere to oppose it. The Bush government is openly supporting Intelligent Design as a valid, scientific theory, while downplaying the theory of evolution at the same time. Why does the US differ so much in theory and in practice? J I P | Talk 11:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose the U.S. could look that way from a distance. Part of what's at work here are some rather deep cultural differences between different parts of the country.  By no means all Christians belong to the religious right.  In fact the U.S. sees many different varieties of Christianity in common practice.  Especially in urban centers, nearly every type of organized religion (Christian or otherwise) has houses of worship.  Religious conservatives do tend to maintain a high profile in the media, somewhat out of proportion to their actual numbers and overall power.  Durova  16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right that there are a lot of religiously motivated conservative political activists in the United States and that many more U.S. Americans are religiously observant than in other developed countries. You are also correct that the Bush regime publicly espouse a religious point of view and say supportive things about religious doctrines.  However, a line is drawn between officials, as individuals, espousing religious points of view and government agencies enforcing religion.  The U.S. Constitution forcefully prohibits state imposition of religion, and lines have been drawn in court battles preventing the state from imposing religious viewpoints or policies based specificially on religious teachings.  This is what is meant by "separation of church and state" in the U.S. context.  It is different from the French concept of official secularism but arguably more protective of individual freedom.  Marco polo 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My guess is the US has remained more religious than other Western countries because the US never had a state church. No one denomination has ever dominated America the way the Catholic Church dominated France. So we've never had any tradition of anti-clericalism. In America, if you don't like your denomination, you can always switch to another one. There's no need to get down on religion in general. -- Mwalcoff 23:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bush may be the president, but he is also a citizen of the United States; as such, he has the same freedom of speech as everyone else. As long as he doesn't force his religious views on the government, he can say whatever he wants.  T H  L  23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The US was founded by religious extremists of varous stripes that had been thrown out of Europe; Hugenots, Puritans, Quakers, etc. America continued to draw others that Europe was unable to stomach: Anabaptists, Doukhobors, etc. It produced a wide variety of its own extremist religions, including Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Theosophy, Shakers, the Oneida Community and Scientology. It has been fertile ground for groups like the Unification Church and the Society for Krishna Consciousness. It is just in the air here, and always has been. I have my theories about why this is, but that is the way it is.--Filll 17:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dragon page problem
I am having a problem editing the page on dragons. For some reason, someone put a odd clipon link, using a misspelling of dragoness. This link leads to a interesting monologe that appears to have no actual purpose. When I go to remove this offending clip, it tells me that i am trying to remove the whole article. I feel that the link is useless, but I can't be sure that i won't ruin the page. Should I just try to delete it? --68.250.176.40 21:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the dragon article is full of nonsense? I just reverted it back to a better version. If you ever go to a page that seems dodgy, click the "history" tab at the top of the page and click on the recent versions (indicated by date) to find a better version. Thanks for alerting me about the vandalism! Hyenaste (tell) 22:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although the Dragon page was vandalized, I can't find anything resembling the above description on the vandalized page – no link, no dragoness, misspelled or otherwise. --Lambiam Talk  15:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

naked baking
hi i asked ths before but someone took it off im serious where can i find pics of naked baking. naked baking is when women gather naked and bake pastries.


 * If you want to be taken seriously, you will sign and date your posts. You will also learn how to spell, punctuate and form proper sentences.--Light current 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to find anything on the Internet, including pornography that satisfies your own personal kink, search engines such as Google and Yahoo Search are your friend. Beyond that, I don't think many regular contributors to the reference desk are interested in running a pornography referral service.  --Robert Merkel 02:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in http://www.bunnybunns.net/ Bunny Bunns, and her Nude Cooking Talk Show. She is  a devotee of the avatar of God Adi Da. Remeber, "Safety First!". As seen in her video, she wears an apron when deep fat frying. --GangofOne 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah that would be to avoid frying the deep fat on her belly presumably? 8-)--Light current 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Shelf life
Does anyone know the shelf life of Saki?


 * Depends on how high the shelf is 8-)--Light current 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well H.H. Munro is still very entertaining and readable but he is not in fashion and not so frequently read. He's had short stories published only this year although he is a bit of an acquired taste. The perfect accompaniment to his works? rice wine that stuff is always delicious. -) MeltBanana  00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The sake article states that most types lose the flavor in presence of light, air, and heat, and that sake is generally not aged, and is best consumed within a few months after purchase. So I guess the shelf life of most sake shouldn't exceed a few months. Of course there are exceptions, and aged sake is mentioned under Sake.---Sluzzelin 02:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "The open window" is still a fine story. See Edison 06:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry for being daft, and I enjoyed reading Saki too, but was the questioner actually asking about the author's shelf life? If so, apologies to the original poster for misreading a typo into the question.---Sluzzelin 07:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Schmoo cake origin
What is the origin (city of, or whatever) of the Schmoo cake. It is a common dessert in Winnipeg, Manitoba, but when, why and how did it start?--####

Schmoos were charcters in the lil'Abner cartoon strip. Maybe that is relevant.--Filll 23:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's Shmoo, not schmoo. :)  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Schmoo is a mispronounciation of s'mores. What does a Schmoo cake look like? --JDitto 05:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a flatbed scanner or I'd show you a picture of a Schmoo torte/cake from an old Five Roses cookbook I inherited from my mother. They're not like smores *at all* - smores weren't known in Western Canada at the time schmoo cake became popular in the 1900s. (I don't even know if one person in a hundred today would know what they were.)


 * A schmoo cake is typically a very rich traditional nut cake. It's made in an angel food cake pan and after baking is cut into three layers. The bottom and second layer are spread with a very thick butterscotch sauce, the cake is reassembled, and the cake is covered with a thick rich icing made out of whipping cream, sugar, and usually beaten egg whites (like a meringue, but heavier).


 * I just checked in my other old Canadian cookbooks - all of them have recipes for Schmoo "tortes", not cakes, except the 19th century cookbook and the cookbook from Quebec. This makes me wonder if this isn't a Central European recipe brought over to the prairies by immigrants. "Schmoo" could be a slurring of some German, Yiddish, or Slavic word. If the word "schmoo" originated in Western Canada in the 1900s, that's extremely likely.


 * Anyway, it looks like an angel food cake with white icing when uncut and like a nut cake with horizontal butterscotch layers when cut.


 * Here's one recipe. --Charlene.fic 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence and wealth
How much intelligence does some one need to become a millionaire? And if so, why aint I one?--Light current 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It does if you're a contestant of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? --Agester 23:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about intelligence - but the *easiest* way to become a millionaire? Marry a millionaire or be born to parents who are millionaires... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, wealth has little relationship to intellectual capacity. As Kurt S B points out, it has a strong relationship to inheritance.  As for "self-made men," they are seldom intellectuals, but often good schemers and con artists. They succeed in meeting the right people (those who have inherited money) and winning their trust (convincing them to invest).  They may also have good intuitions about what will sell and how to sell it.  This is a particular type of intelligence, but not the same type that is usually featured at Wikipedia.  Marco polo 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * George W. Bush has got to be a millionaire. Need I say more? You're not one because you spend too much time here! Clarityfiend 02:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Does your family have a lot of money? That may be a limiting factor.Edison 06:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest taking up study in economics. Or if that's too much, learn to at least differentiate between assets (money in the bank) and liabilities (time lost putting emoticons in the Wikipedia ref desk). Anyways, you don't need intelligence to be rich--you just need to create a demand for something (ex. Apple created IPods).

Plus, there is an increased amount of individuals that report that joining up with God's family leads to an increased amount of granted wishes. --JDitto 06:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Money makes money. Does anyone know of any statistics for millionaires showing their average intelligence and the average wealth of their parents? I'm sure some such study must have been done. DirkvdM 07:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A good amount of money has been made by people able to take what others have discovered and use it to their advantage. It isn't necessarily what you know, but how well you can research.  T H  L  23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Milionaire Next Door" shows that many wealthy people make (and more importantly look after) their own money. Rich Farmbrough, 13:55 19 October 2006 (GMT).

Grey teeth?
I have a strange discoloration in my teeth. This discoloration isn't really yellowish or any type of "color". It's more of a greyish than white color but the teeth that have this property isn't completely grey just maybe grey in blotches. Anyone got any info. or links to any posibilities this might be? Thanks! --Agester 23:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't really say; our article on teeth doesn't seem to mention colors at all. If you really are concerned about it, it would be wise to see your dentist about it. --71.117.44.145 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, we had listed "dentist" on the heading for this page as part of the medical/legal advice disclaimer for so long, and then some one removed it, presumably because no one ever asked for dental advice here. Maybe we need to put it back. --Maxamegalon2000 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this something that has just happened recently, or is it a chronic condition? Tooth discoloration can be the result of minerals in the drinking water.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I didn't think it is a problem because i have regular check ups and my teeth have been like this for a majority of my life and I was just curious one day when looking in the mirror and lowering my self-esteem watching teeth bleaching commercials and figured why my teeth didn't look like that. My dentists have never mentioned or prescribed me anything for this strange discoloration so i don't think it's malignant. (last time i saw a dentist was approx 3-4 weeks ago). In addition, i've seen several different destists in the years of my life. In response to the drinking water, i doubt that since my family and I drink from the same source and they seem to have normal teeth. --Agester 03:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Get it checked out. Seriously. One of my teeth turned blue-grey; six months later I had the most diabolical toothache, and it had to be removed. Now I have a gap in me gob, which is a handy place to hold pencils when my hands are full but looks and feels ridiculous. Howard Train 03:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I did some extensive reading on the teeth article (i poorly skimmed it before) and came across the Dental fluorosis article and the picture there (of mild fluorosis) sortof looks almost exactly as what i was thinking of only there is more of the brighter white than the darker white on the surfaces i checked. I think that maybe what it is and believe me i will go see my dentist about this. However, like i mentioned i've had teeth like this for a large portion of my life and have been recieving regular check ups. I doubt it's anything malignant. --Agester 04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Tetracycline is said to cause teeth to be gray, especially if you got it in childhood. Othrwise wine, coffee, and cola drinks can darken teeth.Edison 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)