Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 December 3

= December 3 =

being poor versus being rich
Poverty seems to be responsible for many social economic problems. If everyone where rich would this solve most of the problems? 71.100.1.143 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Put it another way, there's only one thing money can't buy... poverty! --Web H amster  02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that is not true. People who had good jobs and who won the lottery have ended up and are still on welfare after going through millions and millions they did not know how else to spend. Having experienced riches has made it impossible for them to once again function adequately in their former jobs. 71.100.1.143 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

i think webhamster should be a full-time philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlo2012 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been plenty of studies that show that once you are earning more than a 'living wage', increasing earnings do not confer additional happiness. But obviously, people who are earning a living wage are happier than those on or below the poverty line. SteveBaker 03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that remain true when people are confronted with an additional expense that a wage will not cover such as a very expensive roof replacement which being rich would allow? 71.100.1.143 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In specific response to 71.100.1.143's sub question, there is "I've been rich and I've been poor. Believe me, honey, rich is better.", unsourced in the article though it be. Bielle 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Poverty, to an extent, is relative to the (percieved) cost of living and the average income of the whole population. In the developed world, a person in poverty may have a house and children educated to a certain degree, while the same situation in the third world is lower-middle class. If everyone was 'rich' (also a relative term), the concept of poverty would change. It might become that poverty means you have dial-up internet and can't afford to have a backyard swimming pool. This would solve many problems, in that there wouldn't be people starving, in theory, although this also assumes that there are enough resources available for everyone still, and that the cost of living didn't hyper-inflate with the rising standard of living and income (something that is likely to happen in such a situation). Steewi 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When I say everyone being rich I of course mean on a universal global scale to include everyone having the swimming pool if they want it and the yacht and the fine clothes and the hobby tools and the whatever. In other words the ability to have by simply opening the wallet anything anyone else could or can have by doing the same thing. 71.100.1.143 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If everyone were rich, nobody would need to work crappy jobs. With few or no sanitation engineers, sewer workers, trash collectors, janitors, nurses, fruit pickers, teachers, bus drivers, cab drivers, tax collecters, parking attendants, security guards, pest controllers, bus boys, waitresses, meat packers, gardeners and various other such people who do important but relatively undesirable jobs, the "civilized" world would die on its ass in a matter of weeks.  Neil   ☎  14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you'd need a tremendous amount of automation for everyone to be "rich" the way we currently understand the term. (I'd also wonder about the rise in sea level caused by the 6.5 Billion Yachts.  Probably we'd need to have a rule that the volume of your swimming pool must equal the displacement of your Yacht.) 72.10.110.107 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably a better question would start "If nobody were poor..." which is a different matter entirely. --72.10.110.107 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are, to my mind, effectively the same statement. It's important to remember that it's impossible for everyone to be above average.  From an economics standpoint, boosting everybody's income to some minimum level will (as Steewi noted) cause rapid inflation and you'll end up with more-or-less the status quo.  I think it's at least reasonable to discuss guaranteeing subsistence-level income, but beyond that, the nature of capitalism is one of haves and have-nots. &mdash; Lomn 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Obviously, you're correct that increasing the amount of money without increasing the amount of things available to buy with it would be worthless. But, It's a hypothetical question, so if we were to suppose Star Trek style automation with replicators and transporters, or Asimov style automation with an army of robots who don't count as people, then it's easy to imagine changes to the economic system that would result in everybody being above the poverty line (and therefore not "poor"). It's even imaginable (though a bit harder) to imagine that such a world could have a very flat wealth distribution curve. Sure, that might not be achieved by Capitalism, but if we're magicaly making free stuff and eliminating poor people, why try to cram that utopia into any existing economic system? Why not invent something new to fit the circumstance?
 * But it's a lot harder to imagine that everyone is "Rich" with a mansion and a Yacht. We'd need a bigger planet. 72.10.110.107 17:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So what happens? You make everyone rich - give them a million dollars each and put them on an hourly pay rate of $500.  What happens immediately is that everyone wants a new car/big-screen-TV/yacht/house/whatever.  The car manufacturers can't turn out 5 billion cars in any reasonable amount of time, so there is an immediate scarceity of cars.  Basic economics says that when supply is short, prices go up until the supply balances the demand again.  Ergo, the prices will increase until the number of people who are willing to pay that much for them equals the number of cars that can be manufactured (which, remember you havn't changed by doing this).  This will happen to absolutely all products except for the very basic things that poor people are already buying in quantity - for which there is adequate production capability.  However, the hyper-inflation this would cause would dramatically increase the cost of making basic commodities too.  Before you know it, inflation wipes out everyone's savings and makes their income only just enough to buy the basics and voila...everyone is poor again, and a loaf of bread costs $1000.  In essence, all you did was re-value the currency to make it SEEM like everyone was rich.  You can place a legal limit on the amount people are allowed to charge for goods to prevent this from happening - but now nobody needs to work anymore and there is nobody to make the things we need.  Even if you force people to work, the manufacturers rapidly go broke paying people $500 an hour to make things that cost $10.  So again, disaster.  SteveBaker 14:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a big question. My thoughts, purely in my own terms: earning a 'living wage' as SteveBaker said, would at least take the stress and worry out of having to pay bills which one may not be able to afford; however, earning too much is completely possible, and can have bad social and self-discipline effects. I can't speak from much experience because I am 17, and have hardly paid a bill in my life. My dad earns an exceptional amount in comparison to my friends, but it is spent just as quickly because my mum and sister have got used to spending money in quite large quantities, although I have never been a spender. I feel now that I am not used to the World Of Work, because I haven't had to fight for what I want. It sounds strange, but I now wish that I came from a poor background, since I can actually picture myself being a happier person, and being more used to the world as it is; a pathetic politically correct society. I feel wise now, but it's a bit too late. At least I wont let the same happen to my children. But that's just my opinion, there will never be a proper verdict on the subject. Adamd1008 19:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't despair too much - a lot of the reason that rich people are not happier than merely 'comfortable' wage earners is that they tend to spend their money on things like big houses that actually bring them zero additional joy and reduce their disposable income back to the level of someone who is earning less and living in a smaller house. Also, the most well paying jobs are stressful jobs - the extra million bucks you'd earn a CEO is adding to your joy - but the stress of trying to do that job subtracts joy to an approximately equal degree.  Sizing your biggest purchases (house and car mainly) to what you need rather than to the expectations people have (at whatever salary you are earning), allows you to do work that you actually enjoy and yet still have enough disposable income to be happy.  Of course if you really aren't earning enough to get by - then it's hard to do this because being poor sucks. SteveBaker 20:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Put simply no universal wealth wouldn't solve happiness problems in any way shape or form. As AA Gill said on visiting famine struck areas of Africa in the 90s he wasn't shocked to see intense poverty he was shocked to see laughter, happiness, flirting. This isn't to say famine equates to happiness, but merely an example of happiness not being confined to wealth. Happiness is an extremely difficult state of mind to understand, even harder to value. To some it is "keeping up with their peers", to others it is achieving their life long dreams. Another still might consider themselves only truly happy if everyone is brought around to their way of thinking (say fundamentalist campaigners of religion or radicalists in social movements). Wealth does help often make it 'easier' to achieve our goals in life, but after a certain wealth point do you lose that ability to hide behind the 'money excuse' for your failings (e.g. i would've been able to achieve X if i had the money). Additionally increased wealth is often linked to increased working hours and increased 'stress' in your occupation. This is not exclusive to high-powered jobs, some of the poorest jobs seem to get all the bad pieces too, but certainly there is a relationship with income-increases in this manner. I linked to it the other day but here again is a wonderful TedTalk about happiness (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/97) by Dan Gilbert where he mentions synthesized happiness V natural happiness. Very interesting stuff. ny156uk (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2 day Japanese Diet
Does anyone know the contact information for the 2 Day Diet Japan Lingzhi diet pills? I looked all over and cannot find it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.132.90 (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely guarantee they don't work.


 * To answer your question, simply typing "Japan Lingzhi diet pills" into Google gets you the usual trail of scammers and spammers. You need to learn to parse their adverts:  "All natural ingredients" means "We can sell any old crap without the FDA regulating it if we make it out of food items".  There is some kind of naive belief out there that if something is "natural" then it can't hurt you.  That's a bizarre point of view when you see that powerful drugs are made from plants.  If it did work as advertised, (by "blocking conversion of carbohydrates to fats"), it would be doing such horrendous things to your metablolism that you'd definitely want some serious scientific studies to ensure they were actually safe before even considering sticking one in your mouth!


 * The truth is that there are absolutely no "diet pills" that are both healty and effective - none. If you go to a proper doctor (not some quack) or a nutritionalist and ask about them prescribing you "diet pills" - they will unfailingly tell you to eat less and exercise more.


 * The nearest thing we have to pills that actually work are diuretics and anorectics. Let's examine those:


 * Diuretics make you pee more - so you lose water. Since water weighs pounds - you appear to lose pounds.  Sadly, if you keep taking them you die - and as soon as you stop taking them and have a good long drink of water, the pounds go right back on.  You need to lose fat - not water.
 * Anorectics supress your appetite so you eat less. You can get the exact same effect by just eating less using willpower alone - but there is also a problem that they cause your body to go into 'starvation mode' where your metabolism switches over to processing food more efficiently - which means that you don't lose as much weight as you'd hope.  Worst of all, as soon as you stop taking the pills, your appetite comes back with a vengence - but your body is still in starvation mode and the weight comes back on faster than it came off.


 * Just in case you think it's easier to take an anorectic than to use good old fashioned willpower, I'll point you to the Fen-phen article - a simple anorectic that caused 30% of people who took them to have abnormal echocardiograms and 50,000 people to sue because their heart valves were damaged. This is what happens Truly - there is no such thing as a safe, effective diet pill. SteveBaker 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a clue to the obvious problem. Although lingzhi (灵芝 Ganoderma lucidum)is actually a type of mushroom, lingzhi is a Chinese word, not a Japanese word. They didn't even bother to do their own research. Steewi 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Our article Lingzhi lists many effects this stuff has on the body. It's been used to RESTORE people's appetites after    radiotherapy.  Seems like great stuff to take if you want to put on weight!  But look at the long list of things it's claimed for this to do - if even half of them are true (which I doubt) there is no way this cannot be having all sorts of unknown side-effects on your body.  As the article also states: "Moreover, as with any herb, variation between preparations and potential negative side effects cannot be ruled out.".  SteveBaker 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Entry-level DSLRs
I'm looking to buy an entry-level Digital SLR to satisfy a hobby. The potential choices that I have narrowed down to are:


 * Canon EOS 300D Rebel
 * Canon EOS 350D Rebel Xt
 * Nikon D40
 * Nikon D40x

Taking into account the cost, which of these cameras is generally better? Thanks. Acceptable 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We really aren't a review site - this is a bad place to ask this kind of question. SteveBaker 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. One more thing- can I use a lens 17-210mm lens that is compatible with a Nikon F4 with one of those digital SLR? Acceptable 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the nikon mount is still in effect in the Nikon dslr cameras. It goes all the way back to non-AF lenses, although, of course, you won't have auto focus with those lenses. Donald Hosek 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the best digital camera review site I know http://www.dpreview.com/ Vespine 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Did they ever make a 17-210mm lens? it seems very strange since the 18-200mm DX lens is quite revolutionary, which it wouldn't be if one that has wider zoom range and larger image circle was produced. Note that D40(x) cannot use any lens that doesn't have AF-S (ie. autofocus through the little screw thing), so you can't use many of the old lenses on the D40(x). If you want to be able to use all the lenses Nikkor had even made after AI, then consider D50/D70/D70s (bigger, but functionally equivalent to D40) or D80 (more expensive). The two Canon's are quite old, is your budget limited? More information can be found Ken Rockwell's site, specifically D40, D40X, 300D, and 350D. --antilivedT 09:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Nikon F4 Lens definitely won't be compatible with the Canon DSLR's right? Acceptable 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite, due to the smaller mount to sensor distance on the Canon. Autofocus definitely won't work though. --antilivedT 06:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Measuring Lakes
Whats the measurement called that measures the amount of time, on average, that it takes for something to enter and leave a lake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.235.10 (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lake retention time ? Pfly 03:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Residence time is the scientific term used to describe how long any particular substance stays in a given environment. It can be applied to many different conditions, including how long, on average, that something will stay in a lake. This term is used quite extensively, for instance, among environmental scientists in measuring how long, say, carbon stays in the atmosphere (a "hot" topic of late). Saukkomies 12:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New Wkikpedia Entry
I would like an informative entry in Wikipedia for the word "tannembaum" - i.e. from the song "O' tannembaum" ("O' Christmas Tree"). Please research the origin(s) of the word and its derivation from the song.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.215.113 (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so anything that doesn't belong in Christmas tree (which does mention the tannenbaum) would go instead on Wiktionary - and there is a very short (i.e. straight definition) entry at tannenbaum. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also an entry on the song, O Tannenbaum. --Trovatore 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not even an English word - so you wouldn't expect to find it in English Wikipedia or Wiktionary. We are an encyclopedia - not a dictionary - and certainly not a translators dictionary!  If we had every word in every language...it would be a mess!  There is a disambiguation page for the word "Tannenbaum" (not your spelling) over on the German Wikipedia; http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannenbaum - and also a comprehensive entry on the German Wiktionary: http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tannenbaum - the English Wiktionary has a minimal entry http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tannenbaum that just says that it's a German word for 'fir tree'.  Not specifically a Christmas tree according to that. SteveBaker 11:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The origin of the word isn't exactly thrilling; it's just made of the German words "Tanne" (coniferous, fir) and "baum" (tree - from the same root as the English word "beam"). Laïka  12:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you type "Tannenbaum" in your search box, you get the disambiguation page which shows the German meaning, along with a link to wiktionary, the song, a planned military invasion, a hitman, and others things more. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

SMS charging on AT&T (formerly Cingular)
Do you know how the new AT&T (formerly Cingular) charges for SMS in the US? If I don't have an SMS plan, and someone sends me an SMS that I never open (I will just go the the inbox and read the first few words), will AT&T charge for it?

I don't know which desk this fits so I chose the misc. desk. Thank you very much.

Regards,

--Kushalt 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite living in Australia, I have a Cingular/AT&T phone that I use whenever I am in the US. If you don't have an SMS plan, they charge you 10c per SMS, regardless of whether you open it or not (the charge is for delivering it to your phone).Manning 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely you wouldn't get charged for receiving SMS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the US, cell users are charged for all incoming activity (calls, SMS, pictures, whatever). This has been widely cited as a reason for the comparatively slow adoption of cell tech in the States versus much of the world. 199.209.144.218 19:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So if Google sends me SMS alerts everyday, I will get charged for it? Google obviously does not get any money from me but the wireless provider will charge me regardless of whether I open the SMS or not? I am having trouble understanding it because in Nepal, incoming SMS is always free. --Kushalt 20:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only would you get charged, but Google would be charged as well. I can only echo 199's comment - this is why use of mobile technology in the US is years behind most other places.  --LarryMac  | Talk  20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll note that the one upside of this mess is that it's the root cause of the prohibition on telemarketers calling cell phones. &mdash; Lomn 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is really saddening. :'( --Kushalt 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) PS: AFAIK, the per SMS cost is probably USD 0.15 and not 0.10 --Kushalt 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Apollo program exception
Maybe I was thinking dyslexically at the time but I watched a film at the space station near Canberra in Australia and thought it said something about an astronaut on the Apollo missions who couldn't get back inside the capsule for re-entry. Somehow he survived but wasn't included in the parade and was sacked soon after. Is this a myth? If not, who was it? Julia Rossi 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing that you have described is anywhere close to anything that actually happened in Project Apollo or any other space flight. I don't know what you heard, but either it was fiction or you seriously misunderstood it.  --Anonymous, 09:52 UTC, December 3.


 * I can't think who you could be thinking of. There was a Russian astronaut Alexey Leonov who had a lot of difficulty getting back into his capsule due to over-inflation of his space suit - he had to reduce the pressure and had a major struggle getting back in - but he made it. That was on a Vostok mission in 1960 - not Apollo.  But he wasn't fired.  On a later mission, he commanded the Russian half of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project - which would be some sort of minimal connection to Apollo.  I kinda wonder whether you were watching "The Right Stuff" and hearing the story of Gus Grissom's undignified landing during which the capsule's hatch was blown off too soon as it bobbed in the ocean - and resulted in him nearly drowning.  The movie claimed this to be the reason he didn't get a tickertape parade (although that's extremely doubtful IMHO)...but he wasn't fired and in fact was the first person every to go into space twice.  His connection to Apollo was that he later died in the Apollo 1 disaster - which was a fire on the launchpad.  I dunno - I think you're confused. SteveBaker 11:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And just 'cause it needs to be said... anyone who could withstand re-entry while clinging onto the outside of the ship is one tough dude. He'd probably get a ticker-tape parade any time he wanted. Matt Deres 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The more I think about this - the more impossible it becomes. I don't think the Apollo astronauts ever went outside their spacecraft (except on the Lunar surface of course) - their moon suits weren't designed for on-orbit EVA's.  Even on Apollo 13 - when sticking someones head out of the hatch and taking a photo would have answered a lot of questions for them - they didn't do it. SteveBaker 21:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Command Module Pilot did an EVA on Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17, each time to retrieve some film from the Service Module cameras. As for a tough reentry, check this out. anonymous6494 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an Awesome image. I wonder if you can get that in poster form.--APL (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It may also refer to Ed White, the first American to perform a spacewalk. NASA apparently had to insist that he return to the capsule, (this is reconstructed in From the Earth to the Moon). He didn't flat out refuse to return, but he probably did stall a bit to prolong his spacewalk. Incidentally, Gus Grissom and Ed White both died in the Apollo 1 fire. risk 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In Gemini 4 the first US spacewalk, the astronauts had trouble latching the hatch after the EVA (extravehicular activity). In Gemini 9A there was real concern about getting Gene Cernan back inside the capsule, as his visor was fogged. "Stafford has said in a 2001 interview that there was a real concern that Cernan would not be able to get back into the capsule. As it would not have been acceptable for Stafford to cut Cernan loose in orbit he stated that the plan was to make re-entry with the astronaut still attached by his umbilical." Everything worked out ok, and Cernan was not sacked. He got to go to the moon on Apollo 10, and on Apollo 17 was the last human (so far) to stand on the moon. Edison 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the original poster was referring to the indcident when after splash down the door blew off, sinking the capsule. It was claimed that the astronaught did it by triggering the emergency escape, he denied it. I don't believe he flew again. This must have been re-appollo as no apollo capsules were 1 man, to my knowledge.--Dacium 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The astronaut whose capsule sank when the door popped prematurely after splashdown was Gus Grissom. Per The Right Stuff he was somewhat looked down upon, although he denied triggering the explosive bolts on the hatch. He was not kicked out of the space program, and was chosen for an Apollo mission, but bad luck stuck, and he was one of three killed in a fire of the Apollo 1 capsule during a test exercise. He never had anything to do with a spacewalk. One of the other astronauts killed in the same fire was Ed White who did the first U.S. space walk during the Gemini program. Edison 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And as noted by SteveBaker above, not only was Grissom not grounded from further spaceflight, he was the first man (or at least first American; I'm unsure about the Russians) to go to space twice. &mdash; Lomn 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Veering away slightly,didn't the Russians admit a couple of years ago that they had made several attempts to put a man in space before Gagarin but the astronauts died because of problems in the capsule possibly on re-entry? Lemon martini 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - that's true. But the OP said that the astronaut survived.  Also, the Russians weren't attempting to do space walks in those early days.  They didn't have time because these were not orbital flights. SteveBaker 20:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, its not true -there were no pre-Gagarin human spaceflights. See Phantom astronauts. Rmhermen (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cinema poster font
Hi, I am in need of the font that they use for writing credits on cinema posters. Those ultra-ultra narrow ones. I thought about Language-desk at first, but this is a font question, not really related that much to languages. Thanks for any help =) 213.161.190.228 11:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know one of the more popular ones are from the Univers LT family. --Web H amster  11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It varies, but it will generally be a Thin Ultra Condensed face, such as Univers Thin Ultra Condensed. Other popular families are Futura Ultra Condensed and Triple Condensed Gothic. Gill Sans Condensed is a good approximation which can be found on most PCs. Laïka  12:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * dafont.com is always handy. SF Movie Poster and SteelTongs look pretty good. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 21:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have some samples you might be able to use [Identifont] to identify the exact font. AndrewWTaylor 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Or WhatTheFont if you have a digital image. — Matt Eason (Talk &#149; Contribs) 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dance videos
I need a list of videos (the longer the better) that show "good" dance. An example of such a list is seen here (the videos that inspired the dance moves of the different races in the game World of Warcraft). So, please, if you know a video on Youtube or wherever that displays a dance that you particularly like, write it here. Thanks. --Taraborn 12:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody does it like Ze Frank. jeﬀjon 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Depending on what sort of dance you are looking for (classical or pop): my favourite types are elegant Fan and Ribbon dancing and the cheesy glory of Para Para (video - it's not perfect, but ParaPara is a largely amateur danceform). Oh yes, and there's also the Batusi ! Laïka  16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything. Both classical and pop are fine :) --Taraborn 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Try [Danzilla] for a bunch of folkdance videos from various European locations. It includes some very balletic examples, especially the Russian ones. Also pop 'Lindy hop showdown' into the Youtube search. [[User:Steewi|Steewi]] 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

World's Most Buttery Popcorn...well, almost.
What is the most buttery popcorn available for sale in the United States at a store like Meijer's or Kroger's? -- MKnight 9989  14:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A matter of personal opinion. Or make it yourself and add as much butter as you want - you may find it has become a soggy mess that needs to be eaten with a spoon but we are going for most butter, right? Rmhermen 14:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Watch out for that artifical butter flavor. --LarryMac  | Talk  14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Act II's Ultra Butter 2000 was pretty nasty. When you bit into a kernel, you could feel the grease run down your molars.  It's the butteriest popcorn I've ever expereienced.  It was not a pleasant experence... --Mdwyer 21:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And you wonder why Americans are fat. Grango242 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * purchase four pounds of butter.
 * melt all of the butter in a one-quart double-boiler
 * pop a single bag of microwave popcorn (any brand)
 * dump the bag of popcorn into the melted butter and stir with a wooden spoon for one minute.
 * That's it. You cannot make the popcorn any more buttery than that. -Arch dude 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about getting an ultra buttery popcorn? You might get sick and/or fat with all that butter. But it's your choice. Just search around Kroger's and find your popcorn. It least it won't be lead popcorn from Walmart! MalwareSmarts (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stem Bolts?
I am looking to acquire several dozen self-sealing stem bolts, if anyone could put me in contact with a retailer of such I would be very grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.206.88 (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe there's one on Alpha Ceti Prime, phone number: ≈§ʄ-₩₯₯-ɐ¥№№. --Milkbreath 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They are quire expensive. One was sold for USD $2,040. . -Arch dude 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the off-chance that you're looking for the bicycle part, rather than the Star Trek item, you might like to try a Google search for "stem bolt" or ask on a Bike Forum like this one. If you search for "bicycle parts" on a search engine, you will get lots of results for online stores. There's a stem bolt for sale here (you'll need to check it's the right size/type). Lastly, Ebay has lots of listings. I'm not sure the bicycle parts are self-sealing, however. If you are looking for the ST gidget, good luck! Seems like they're pretty hard to come by. -- Kateshort  forbob  15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, lots of weird responses on this question. At any rate, if you live in the US or Canada, perhaps the best place to look for stem bolts (or any other manufactured item) would be to go to your local library and ask the Reference Librarian to see the Thomas Register. This is an almost universal reference tool to be found in even small public and academic libraries (although probably not in school libraries). It is very unmistakable when you locate it on the shelves, since it comprises usually around 30 or so volumes (and they are BIG VOLUMES at that) and are always colored with a very dramatic vibrant green. In fact, many people refer to the Thomas Register as "The Big Green Books". What this reference does is to list just about all the manufacturers in the United States. It has several indices, including the major one that lists items by their subject. So you could theoretically find the corresponding volume that would include "stem bolts" and go to the listing for that item, and there you would find the addresses, phone numbers, and (if existing) web sites for all the companies that make stem bolts in the US. The listings within the categories are done also gegraphically, going by US States and then cities within each state, alphabetically. Thomas Register also has an online database that does the same thing supposedly, but I'm not sure how extensive it is. At any rate, you could give it a try here:  In addition to the Thomas Register, there are other reference books that list various manufacturers and services by region that may be found in libraries. Good luck. Saukkomies 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstars to Other Users
I met a user, and I would like to award that user a barnstar or other award, but I don't know how to. Can someone please help me figure this out?--Leamarie411x2 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In essence, you just dump the template on their userpage talk page. So for the original barnstar, you just add message ~ to User:Whoever User talk:Whoever . See Barnstars for a list of barnstars in use. Algebraist 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had the impression that usually the Barnstar is placed on the user's Talk page, and then the awardee decides whether or not to place it on his/her Userpage. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  18:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Shows what I know. Now I look more closely, this is mentioned in the second sentence of Barnstars. Oh well. Algebraist 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some very limited circumstances where one would be within one's rights to edit another user's user page, particularly to undo some third party vandalism of which the user doesn't seem to be aware - but as a general rule it should not be done. --  JackofOz 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Code ownership
This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations.

In general, copyright doesn't stop at national boundaries (at least among developed nations), though the international nature of your situation would certainly increase the complexity of any legal case you might choose to pursue.

We're not qualified or permitted to give you advice about the rights you may or may not have regarding the ownership or use of your code or any derivative works therefrom. You would have to speak to a lawyer or other professional experienced in international copyright law. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Using the wrong size bb's for an airsoft gun
what might happen if i use the the wrong size bb's for my air soft gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.183.66 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if they are too big - they won't fit into the barrel - so they won't work. If they are too small, they won't seal correctly against the sides of the barrel and they'll fire at a very low speed and hardly travel any distance at all. SteveBaker 21:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

so could it break my gun or jam it and if it can jam my gun is there a way to un jam it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.183.66 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ok i just droped a bb in to the barrel to see if it would fit and now it wont come out what do i do =( help--76.235.183.66 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If it went in, then it presumably can't be too big. If it won't just roll out - then it's probably not too small.  The BB's are supposed to be a fairly tight fit into the barrel.  Can you fire the gun without loading anything into it?  That ought to get it out. SteveBaker 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i fixed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.183.66 (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "IDIOT"...sry i couldnt resist. Esskater 11 16:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A 30-year Christmas song mystery - "Three Cheers for Christmas"
Not really pop culture becasue there is no hint of it anywhere that I could find. Have any of you ever heard of it?

About 30 years ago, in Ohio, one of the songs that we were originally going to sing at our Christmas concert (back when we had those and could sing any songs, religious or not) was one called "Three Cheers for Christmas." It disappeared for some reason, with no explanation. I was a pretty bright 3rd or 4th grader, bright enough to guess that it had something to do with copyright. (I knew it meant you owned what you wrote, and that maybe the writer didn't want to let us use it.) the more I thought about it, though, don't most performers give rights to songs for school plays, etc.?

Anyway, the closest I can figure is if it never did exist, that maybe one teacher who did write a few songs herself, had written it for the concert, then tried to get it copyrighted. We were introduced to it figuring it would get copyrighted, but then she ran into problems, perhaps the tune was too close to something else, so it got pulled.

Or, has someone else actually heard the song? Oly thing I recall are the first 2 lines... "Three Cheers for Christmas, the best time of year/Three cheers for Christmas, I wish it were here"4.68.248.130 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The first two lines are similar to the first two lines of poem "When Santa Claus Comes", which perhaps someone set to music:


 * A good time is coming, I wish it were here,
 * The very best time in the whole of the year;
 * I'm counting each day on my fingers and thumbs --
 * the weeks that must pass before Santa Claus comes.
 * Then when the first snowflakes begin to come down,
 * And the wind whistles sharp and the branches are brown,
 * I'll not mind the cold, though my fingers it numbs,
 * For it brings the time nearer when Santa Claus comes.


 * MrRedact 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks; lends credence to my copyright theory, that perhaps they decided the change wouldn't be allowed or something.63.3.19.1 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)