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

=February 3=

another computer question
I pressed ctrl+alt+delete and pressed end process for something. Now my speakers wont work for watching videos on the internet. The speakers do work, but when i try to go to the control panel, it won't let me change any options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.100.86 (talk • contribs)


 * Perhaps a computer restart will resolve the issue? Or you may have terminated the Windows Audio service. Splintercellguy 02:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

i think it was the second one. any way to fix it?

Here's how you turn on Windows Audio Service:

1)Click on the START button on the taskbar

2)CLick on RUN

3)Type MsConfig into the box and click OK

4)Go into SERVICES and find "Windows Audio" and make sure the box next to it is checked. If it isn't, then check it.

5)Click APPLY and OK.

6)Restart your computer. -- Codell « T » 03:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, i rebooted it and it worked again. "The ghetto way is the only way" ha ha ha


 * This would have been an excellent question for the Computer Ref Desk. StuRat 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Yeah Yeah
I remember an old french song that went something like this:

Yeah Yeah Yeah, Je besoin de ma musique, Je besoin de vivre sur terre, de soleil et du pluie....

It's by a male artist and is not related to the band Yeah Yeah Yeah

Does anyone know the title/author of this song? Thx. Jamesino 02:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * These lines are from Céline Dion's "Autor de moi" (Thérèse Dion / Pierre Tremblay ).
 * "Moi, j'ai besoin de terre et de soleil' / d'un peu de pluie comme une fleur. / Toutes les saisons pour moi sont pareilles. / Ma vie s'écoule tout en douceur.
 * Not sure about the yeah yeah yeah, and musique doesn't appear in the lyrics (though chanson does). ---Sluzzelin 04:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's "Besoin pour Vivre" by Claude Dubois lyrics ici--Melburnian 08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you Melburnian, that it. Jamesino 17:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Muscle Cramps
I sometimes get spontaneous muscle cramps in my calves. I have found that I can give myself muscle cramps at will in my calves and bicepts. What effect do these cramps have on the muscles in which they occur? Do they offer some kind of work-out in the muscles, or are they somehow detrimental? Thanks.


 * See muscle cramp for a start. According to the article, cramps aren't inherently damaging in themselves, but may be indicative of other problems: "There are two basic causes of cramping. One is inadequate oxygenation of muscle, and the other is lack of water or salt." V-Man737 06:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't an accumulation of lactic acid after heavy exercise another source of cramps ? StuRat 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Lactic acid is a by-product of muscles trying to work anerobically (ie without enough oxygen) - so "inadequate oxygenation of muscle" (per V-Man737) is the cause of the Lactic acid build-up (per StuRat) and the lactic acid is what cramps the muscle as the body's way of stopping you from further exercise until you've gotten enough oxygen back into it to metabolise away the Lactic Acid and work aerobically again. This is all tied up in the metabolic paths of ATP/ADP which provide the raw energy from which all muscular activity comes. SteveBaker 21:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

--muscle cramps usually mean you are lacking magnesium you can buy it in powder form at the health food shop or in tablet form. MrsV

eating healthy are canned foods bad?
i look at alot of lables on everything in canned food i see contains(calcium carbonate)or some other type of preservative and in juice i see alot of (high fructose corn syrup) i just assumed it wasnt good for you just judging by the name ive also watched a documentary about fast food its called "super size me" and it relates to the topics of fast food being unhealthy and how its addictive my dad is having problems with his health and i am sure its because of his diet i would just like to know about things that are natural and good for you VoLtADrUmMeRVoltadrummer 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Natural" doesn't mean good for you. Calcium carbonate, for example, is simply a calcium additive for foods that don't have any. High fructose corn syrup is probably best to stay away from, though, it's simply "empty calories" and is even worse than sugar. Of course, simply trying not to eat these foods isn't always the best solution. Everything in moderation. A balanced diet, with grains, meat, and the occasional Big Mac is the best way to go. If you eat a Big Mac meal every day, you could end up with artery plaques and general unwellness, but once in a while won't hurt (this isn't medical advice, have to say that :P). Canned foods are no more dangerous than any other kind of food, but you have to watch the salt content, easily found on the side of the can under sodium. If it's big (over, say, 15%), you're taking in a lot of salt and that might raise blood pressure. Just use common sense, realize that just because it has a chemical-ish name doesn't mean it's bad, and make sure you or your father is getting what you need nutrition wise and still enjoying foods you like in moderation. EDIT: if someone feels this is medical advice, feel free to remove part of all of it. I'm just trying to answer the original question, but don't want to start any conflict. Poster: lf your father has medical problems, he should be seeing a physician if he isn't already, because we can't answer specific medical questions here. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 06:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Natural" food enthusiasts often err because of paranoid assumptions about the process that food often goes through, using intensely long chemical names for things like "salt." Take, for example, the evils of dihydrogen monoxide. V-Man737 06:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Canned foods aren't as nutritious as fresh or frozen. The reason is not additives but the very high heat which the food is subjected to for a long period of time. That kind of processing can destroy certain vitamins (most notably Vitamin C). Calcium carbonate, on the other hand, is not bad for you at all. The biggest mistake the "natural" industry has made is to brand anything dangerous as a chemical. Water is a chemical. Baking soda is a chemical. Everything on Earth is a chemical, or a combination of them. Just because something has a chemical name doesn't mean it's bad for you - vitamins all have chemical names.
 * As for natural foods - you have to read your labels. Many "natural" foods contain less salt, less sugar, and (most importantly) fewer cheap fillers such as TVP or soy protein isolate and contain more real food than major supermarket brands. The best way to eat, however, is to consume as few pre-processed foods as possible. Cut out the Hamburger Helper, the Sidekicks, the gravy mixes, the canned spaghetti, the onion soup mix in the pot roast, the canned and dry soups, the frozen entrees, the TV dinners, the cookies and pop, the processed foods full of ultra-cheap fillers (but not sold at ultra-cheap prices) and above all cheap restaurant/drive-in food. Buy meat (if you eat it), fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, and whole grains. Learn how to cook, and especially learn how to use herbs and spices. Not only will you eat better, you'll also save huge amounts of money and you'll likely lose weight. After a few months if you try fast food you may find it inedibly greasy and salty. -- Charlene 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All this said you might want to look more into edible salt and search around google - the debate over how much is an acceptable amount of salt is still raging on. There are many who argue the limits have been set arbitrarily and that the effects of too-low a salt intake are not explained. Additionally recently scientists did the 'super size me' experiment (http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=IG2533398B&rss=true) and found, from the preliminery findings, very different results to this film. There is an obsessions in the modern age with 'natural' food and the 'ill effects' of processed-food but very little is proven about these having any actual damaging effect on your body. A healthy diet is not simply one that misses out processed-food and only eats natural not is it one that does the opposite. Be weary of people who deny processed-food nutriotional/health worth, it can be easily consumed as part of a healthy diet with no ill-effects. There is no definitive diet, we are fortunate enough to choose what we eat - base your decisions on a selection of things, not just 'health' - such as your enjoyment of the product, personal preference, ease of making, cost - because in the real world these things are also part of your food regime and diets do not cover them. ny156uk 10:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the real world, hundreds of millions of people don't touch processed food and have no problems whatsoever. The real barrier to eating healthier is refusing to change your food regime. In reality it's much easier to stick some fresh food in a crock pot in the morning and come home to a freshly home-cooked dinner than it is to drive every single day to McDonald's, but people don't figure in the time it takes to actually go get drive-in food. -- Charlene 12:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of responders that canned foods are worse than frozen, and fresh foods are the best yet. If you do eat canned or frozen foods, try to get "raw ingredients" as much as possible. That is, get plain, low-salt canned potatoes, not frozen tater tots or boxed potatoes au graten, given the choice. Fresh potatoes would, of course, be the best choice, but not everyone likes to take the time to prepare those. StuRat 03:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've boggled me. They make canned potatoes? Really? When you can just wash off a potato, put a hole in it with a fork, stick it in the microwave, hit "Potato", and in a few minutes you have a freshly cooked potato? -- Charlene 12:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly a tinned-potato has benefits over a non-tinned one...longevity being the biggest factor of purchasing tinned produce over fresh produce. :"According to the British Nutrition Foundation, broadly speaking, the vitamin and mineral content of frozen and canned fruit and vegetables is equivalent to that of fresh products." For instance vitamin C and folic acid are sensitive and their levels can be lower in vegetables that have been stored a few days before consumption compared to that which is kept frozen prior up until consumption. Losses occur during the canning process but they are then remain constant for the shelf-life of that product. Benefitis of both frozen/fresh produce exist, we should not look to call this a 'good food'/'bad food' issue - the case is not that simple. ny156uk 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another benefit of tinned potatoes is the reduced production of the poison solanine because they are both entirely protected from light and they are thoroughly cooked. Rmhermen 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegetable Oil Expeller Press
Do you know where I can purchase or find instructions on how to make pure cold pressed vegetable oil (expeller pressed)? An example would be if I would like to make home made cold pressed olive oil or sesame oil? There must be a home device that would allow me to make the oil? (SpamBot Starvation Enforced) Ken→KenKeeve 05:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Ken Mardian


 * Google "olive oil press". They are available, but they're four-figure machines. The ancient presses took up half a room and quite literally weighed a ton - they were made of solid stone. Also look here - according to this article, expeller-pressed oils are not cold-pressed. -- Charlene 07:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You can check out the http://www.magicmillusa.com/item.php?item=Magic_Mill_TB20 Magic Mill OilPress TB20, which is actually a Swedish import, this is the cheapest expeller I've found in the last few years. Or you can get a small industrial model from China or India if you have the funds. Or you can search for a used industrial model on ebay. Depends on whether you're using this for edible oil or biodiesel, the small one is nowhere near powerful enough to produce fuel quantities, but would keep you well supplied around the house with sunflower, linseed, rapeseed, etc. type oils. Al

TV
was the Queens wedding in 1947 televised?
 * I'd guess more likely shown at cinemas... 惑乱 分からん 12:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found examples of the radio broadcast and also this (http://www.birth-of-tv.org/birth/assetView.do?asset=BIRTHOFTELEV19001___1113215017890) which seems to suggest the event had at least some filming. She was not Queen at the time so searching by 'Princess Elizabeth' instead may help you track down more information. From my quick search I cannot see anything that suggest it was broadcast, and the page bbc 1 makes me think it was unlikely because of the coverage area of the channel - though it could have been recorded and shown in cinemas/town halls etc. ny156uk 12:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Being around at the time I can say that it was not televised. What was television in UK 1947? But her Coronation was televised. (We soldiers were given the day of... but then marched to the camp cinema and compelled to watch.)86.216.123.47 16:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)petitmichel


 * There was television in the UK in 1937. Parts of the Coronation of George VI were televised to the 20,000 London homes that had television. The service was shut down on September 1, 1939, and started up again on June 7, 1946. Unfortunately, the reference I'm getting all this from here hasn't got past September 1947 yet (the Princess having married in November of that year). I suspect that newsreels of the wedding would have shown up on the news in many countries, but I strongly doubt there were live cameras in the Cathedral. That's a very modern invention.


 * Then again, public royal weddings are a relatively modern phenomenon - most of Queen Victoria's children were married privately. Now that I think of it, most of the public traditions of the British Royal Family are innovations. -- Charlene 12:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would venture "no". Several sources, including some official ones, make a big deal about her coronation in 1953 being televised at her request; one would think that the same articles would have mentioned it if her wedding had been televised. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

cost of a coke at McD's
Someone told me that when I buy a coke at a fast food place, most of the cost goes towards the cup itself as opposed to the liquid in it. Is this true? any internet sources? Someone also said the same goes for cereal and cereal boxes.
 * I think most of the money goes to the company's profit. But you may be right about paper cups costing more than the liquid in them; it's just carbonated water and very cheap syrup --⁪froth T 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that is true since they'll always fill 3/4 of the cup with a bunch of ice.


 * I think you'll find that the greatest cost of common soft drinks is for labor, no matter whether it comes from a fountain at a fast food place or already bottled or canned. That explains why larger sizes typically cost only slightly more than smaller sizes: the labor to handle them is practically identical.  --Anonymous, February 3, 2007, 22:24 (UTC).


 * Here in the USA, most restaurants and fast-food places offer free refills. This strongly suggests that the liquid is almost zero cost and the cups are the bigger part of the cost.  I'm always amused to see people buying large sized drinks when the refills of small-sized drinks are also free!  But pricing in these places doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the actual costs.  They might sell drinks for less than they cost to make in order to sell more high-profit burgers...or maybe the other way around.  It's a subtle marketting dance. SteveBaker 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One reaon you might still buy the bigger drink is that you're planning on taking the last refill out of the store with you, perhaps on that nine-hour car ride that still looms ahead of you. And often, the price delta between the small and the large is trivial anyway. Atlant 12:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And the really small sizes (like the mcdonalds happy meal size) are only good for one or two gulps! --⁪froth T 17:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only place where a fountain pop is cheap is in a foreign country. I was under the impression that corn production is so heavily subsidized (and thus the sugar that is the main ingredient in the syrup) that most people have bought the drink thousands of times in taxes over the span of their lives. Lowerarchy 14:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ink Cartridge recycling
Is there any charity recycling Epson ink cartridges in the UK. Most seem not to want Epsom; I wonder why this should be so? --88.111.50.88 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't know about the first question, but the answer to the second one is that compatible Epson cartridges are so cheap that nobody would buy recycled originals. This is because most other makes of cartridge contain part of the printing mechanism, but Epson cartridges are just simple tubs of ink. See Inkjet printer. --Heron 21:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found now that the Mission to Seafarers will take any cartridge or mobile phone for recycling. Thanks for the input above.--88.110.44.198 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

family tree
86.41.86.150 19:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)hi there, I'm trying to find a good free site where i can trace back some family. born here in cork, ireland. person i need to find our about is deceased and have little info only name and address. i think i have relations by way of this old man somewhere in ireland but don't know where to start. please help. Trish


 * I don't know of any completely free sites. However, many sites, such as this one will permit access to their records (or some portion of their records) for free for a limited "trial" period. With a little ingenuity, you can find out a great deal of information, although you won't necessarily be able to access all their records. However, there is an alternative: if you have fairly accurate information about the name and residence of your ancestors, you may be able to conduct your research by calling or emailing geneological societies, etc. in the relevant area. In the United States, many societies will assist you with research (look up birth certificates, etc.) free of charge, although there would certainly be fees to obtain copies of any documents. I don't know if geneological societies in Ireland are as accommodating. Carom 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The LDS church would probably be willing to do it for you; I couldn't find their genealogy website though... The rest of that article has useful information. V-Man737 03:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The LDS genealogy search site is here 198.152.70.2 15:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

PS3 + Xbox 360 + Wii = $$$
Greetings,

I am wondering why the new consoles are costing so much. They have said "We want to spread gaming to everyone" but I can't go shelling out $600 for a game system, and $100 for a contoller, and $60 for a game. Then you have to get an HDTV and an HD-DVD. I want to know why the prices are what they are and when the prices might be lowered.

Fare thee well, Alexander the Great AlexanderTG 21:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A Xbox 360 system is $250. Buy one and rent games. --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 21:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A wii is 250. An Xbox 360 is 300. I want to know why they're expensive AlexanderTG 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The consoles are currently all pretty new, and they all contain cutting edge technology. Moore's law states that the rate of technological advance in microchip technology is very rapid, so what seems state of the art now will be common place in a years time, and hence components will be cheaper to source. Plus, specialised components such the accellerometers in the Wiimote will gain from economies of scale as the Wii takes off; more companies will be willing to produce these components now that their success is almost certain, and so they will begin to compete to offer the cheapest quote. The Gamecube and Xbox both dropped by $50 after 6 months, and a further $50 after another 18 months-2 years, while the PS2 took almost 2 years to drop in price, but then dropped by $100. This generation will likely follow suit; I can see the PS3 falling in price dramatically, but not for another couple of years, when the currently state of the art technology becomes much more common and hence cheaper. If you want cheap, I'd buy a Wii; as the console isn't quite as hi-def, the games are cheaper (no Wii game should cost over $50, apparently), and wireless controllers are included as standard, unlike the 360. If you're willing to wait a little while, though, the 360 should drop soon. Laïka  21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Because a team of accountants and marketers decided that those were the most appropriate unit cost/profit margin/marketability price points for the units. The market will force their hand if the price points are unsustainably high.  I usually buy consoles a generation behind, it's a great money saver.  Then again, I really don't care much about video games.  Anyway, considering inflation, this generation of consoles isn't any more expensive than the last with the exception of Sony's offering.  For some explanation of the reasoning for this latter console's price, you can easily dig up tons of articles analyzing the cost of the unit itself and some of Sony's explanations as to why they think the price is sustainable.  P.S. - That's a misapplication of Moore's law.  Moore's law isn't a predictor of technological advancement or even microprocessor capability, only transistor density (and by extension, IC feature size).  -- mattb

if your looking for a ps3 that is lower than 500 bucks, then i suggest waiting a couple of months. Sony has been losing a lot of money and they are likely to lower the price soon. The wii is already as cheap as it can get, so don't wait for the price to go down any time soon. The xbox 360 is getting older, so it should get a little cheaper by the end of this year.


 * I don't think your statement about the Wii is correct. Some of the specialized components will drop in price (as Smurrayinchester pointed out), and this will give Nintendo some room to drop the price. Additionally, as Nintendo recoups some of the cost of developing the Wii, the price will probably drop (I'm not an economist; this is is simply based on my observations from the last generation of consoles). I would be extremely surprise if the price of the Wii did not drop within the next 18 months. Carom 22:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The critical thing you need to know about the console business is that most consoles are sold for less than they cost to manufacture. The manufacturers make their money by taking a percentage of the price of games for that console. This makes for an odd state of affairs. You'll notice that games for the Xbox and PS3 are costing around $60 while Wii games cost around $45. This is because Nintendo made a cheaper console (no fancy hi-def stuff for example) - and were able to sell it for about what it costs to make (some sources claim they make a small profit on the console - others claim they make a small loss - but it's close). That means that Nintendo can sell games for less because they have less to recoup for losses on console sales. The PS3 - despite it's outrageous price tag is still being sold at an enormous loss. This is the reason for the horrible shortage of game consoles when they first come out around Xmas. If the manufacturer is making a loss on every console, the more they sell, the worse off they are - since game sales don't roll in to make up for this loss immediately, the manufacturer has a serious cash flow problem. The general idea is to sell just enough consoles to make sure that the people who publish games for it will be interested in writing for this console - but not so many that you sink yourself in horrifying losses. As the game income starts to ramp up, they can afford to sell more consoles - then more games - then more consoles. Gradually, the price of components falls and economies of scale kick into a higher gear and they are able to fulfill the demands of their customers for console hardware.

Nintendo's strategy of making a cheap - not so capable - console at close to break-even prices has enabled them to sell vastly more machines than Sony in the short term.

It's a bizarre situation where a company doesn't want to sell too many of its products. But if you are losing $100 on every machine you sell - and you sell a million of them - then you may need to sell 10 million games just to break even! This strange situation explains why the Nintendo DS has been so much more successful than the vastly more capable Sony PSP. The average DS owner has 12 games in his/her collection. The average PSP owner has one point five games! This is a disaster for Sony - they'll never recoup the loss they made on the console on the basis of one and a half games sold!

SteveBaker 02:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * *applause* excellent answer! --⁪froth T 17:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't buy this 'console manufacturers lose money on console sales alone' - maybe that's what they want you to believe - so you think you're gettng a good deal - look at the PS2 now - £99 approx - for something that's worth (using a comparision to DVD players) approx £40. Overall I think they make a profit just on the console sales (provided of course they sell 100million of them...)87.102.8.103 17:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no question that they generally lose money on console sales. This is a very well known thing in the business.  But you shouldn't be surprised, it's not entirely unusual in the high tech world.  For example, computer printers are sold at a loss in order to make big bucks on the ink cartridges (they can make an entire printer INCLUDING a half-full ink cartridge for $65 - but they charge you $60 for an ink cartridge!) - cell phones are sold cheap (or given away for free) in order to get you to subscribe to their phone service.  The world is full of similar examples.  But as consoles get older and technology marches on, there is scope for re-engineering them to use fewer chips, cheaper chips and so on.  There are also non-recurring costs that are amortized over longer production runs - so the cost of making the moulds for the case, writing the firmware, designing the manuals...those kinds of things gradually drop out of the equation after the console has been out there for a few years.  Now the manufacturer has to choose between dropping the price so as to sell more (and hence sell more highly profitable games) - or to try to actually make a profit on the console itself.   But it is rare indeed for a console to sell for more than it costs to make.  Nintendo claimed to have made a small profit on the Game-Cube - but that is widely disputed.  Certainly the Xbox and PS-3 are selling at a loss right now. SteveBaker 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya, dat is true SteveBaker. I own 10 DS games, and if I had a PSP probably only one or two. But here's my question; Why make games that cost more than the price? Why spend millions on graphics when you could be using it to improve game quality and controller sensitivity? It's redundant. AlexanderTG 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

romeo vs tybalt
can one of you guys give me a link that gets me to the fight of romeo and tybalt from the 1960's movie? i tried to find it on youtube but all i got was a bunch of highschool plays.
 * A 1960's movie will be under copyright still so any clips from it are liable to be illegal copyright violations. Best to go rent it yourself. Rmhermen 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pain
If you are very tierd and in pain. can that make you more irratable then normal?--DarkFuture 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. See irritability. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 23:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For most people, it would be very difficult to not be at least somewhat irritable when in pain and tired. -- Charlene 02:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You should have asked that question two days ago. |-( (For some reason, I was only irritable when I wasn't editing Wikipedia.) V-Man737 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Load Bearing wall
Is there any advice/precautions I could take when drilling into a supporting wall to attach some cabinets which will be taking a relatively large amount of weight (i.e. up to 100kg)? Howso-Mchowsoson 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You should be fine provided that the diameter of your fastener is not more than, say, 25% of the width of the load-bearing members (studs). I would also not space them close together vertically, not within, say, 100mm of each other vertically (assuming about a 10-12mm drill). Make sure you use sufficient fasteners! This is a "guestimate" by someone with qualification to make such but govern yourself accordingly. --Justanother 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasoning is that when you drill a hole in a compressive member you are reducing the cross sectional area and increasing the stress. Bearing walls are built with more than ample factor of safety (on the nature of 2 - 3x or more) so the reduction from one bollt hole going 1/2-way in is on the order of 10%. And if you have a bolt in there then there is no net loss. The guess comes in in guessing that you can afford that 10%. I know the bolts will be in but what about when they are not? --Justanother 00:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not mention it, and it was assumed by the previous responders, but instructions with cabinets I have hiung said be sure to locate the stude and get at least 1 vertical pair of screws into the stud. It would be an obvious mistake to attach heavy cabinets only to plaster or drywall. In a kitchen I remodeled, I installed hanger studs horizontally between the normal vertical studs, before putting up the drywall, so the full width of the cabinet was structurally supported. The screws must be large enough and deep enough into the studs to not shear off or pull out. Washers inside the cabinet help avoid the screwheads goung through the cabinet back. If multiple cabinets are attached firmley to one another, and each is atached to at least one stud, ithe whole assembly will be more stable than is just 1 cabinet is attached to 1 stud. Edison 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuffield Guppy
I'm working on getting the Mini Moke article through WP:FAC and one of the reviewers asked that I try to get a redlink to Nuffield Guppy at least up to stub status.

All I know is that the Nuffield Guppy was a military vehicle designed in the 1940s or '50s by Sir Alec Issigonis for the Nuffield Organisation. Issigonis also designed a lot of influential cars such as the Morris Minor, the Mini and the Mini Moke. The only Google hits for the Guppy point back to my Mini Moke article here on Wikipedia so it could very well be that there is no information on the Internet about this vehicle! His biography "Issigonis and the Mini" mentions nothing about it - all it says about his time working with Nuffield is that he designed two military vehicles: But the book fails to give any names for either them. The odds are good that one of these is the Nuffield Guppy - but which one? Various books on the Mini Moke suggest that the Guppy was in some sense a predecessor of the Moke - so I certainly need to mention it in my article - and it should be linked too.
 * 1) A weird vehicle that could best be described as a 'parachute-droppable motorized amphibious four-wheeled wheelbarrow' (with a photograph of this bizarre vehicle which looks pretty much exactly like what you currently have in your head right now!)
 * 2) Some sort of Jeep-like vehicle.

From the context, I might suspect the Jeep-like thing is the Guppy because the Mini Moke is also Jeep-like - but then a Guppy is a small fish - which would be a good name for an amphibious motorized wheelbarrow and the Mini Moke was also designed to be parachute droppable.

I seem to have hit a dead end. I don't really have enough information for even a stub. SteveBaker 01:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Those two may not be as far apart as you think. While Jeep-like vehicles are not truly amphibious vehicles (which can propel themselves while floating on water) they are "water resistant", in that their higher ground clearance and other modifications made them more likely to be able to drive across a shallow stream without stalling than their predecessors. Also, what is the caption on the pic of the weird vehicle ?  StuRat 02:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It says "Issigonis in 1944, testing the amphibious motorised wheelbarrow developed for the armed forces." SteveBaker 21:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Great on your working on that article. I had a friend that was very into Mini Mokes. I'm afraid I can't add anything of substance to your question. I tried a bit of GooFu but no better luck than you. But I was curious if you saw this "Sport Moke" that came up? --Justanother 02:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And again --Justanother 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weird! I'll look into it. The article is a little on the short side for a FA - anything more I can find to write about is a good thing.  Thanks. SteveBaker 21:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If none of us can find any references to the Nuffield Guppy online or elsewhere, perhaps you remembered the name wrong ? Could it be the tadpole or some other name ? StuRat 03:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No - I didn't "remember" it - it's in a couple of reference books that I quote in the article. The name is definitely right. SteveBaker 21:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While the internet is likely not the best source of obscure auto trivia from the post-war years, I did find a bit more on the work Issigonis was doing at Morris Motors and those strange vehicles which may or may not have been the Guppy. The Nuffield throws me as that is after "Lord Nuffield" AKA William Morris of Morris Motors so why would the Guppy have not been a Morris? What is the source for the Guppy piece? Anyway, from here:"During World War II, Morris Motors undertook military work, notably the development of the Morris lightweight reconnaissance vehicle for the war department. As a member of a reserved occupation Issigonis was excused service in the armed forces and remained at the company’s Cowley plant near Oxford. There he worked on military vehicles of various types, including a motorised wheelbarrow intended for use by the air force in jungle conditions together with an amphibious version designed for use by the Royal Navy."--Justanother 03:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - that's pretty much the information I have. The 'Nuffield'/'Morris' connection (See Template:British Leyland) comes about because the 'Morris' and 'Riley' companies were merged in the early 1940's under Lord Nuffield to form the 'Nuffield Organisation' - which later joined with the Austin Motor Company to form British Motor Corporation (who went on to make the Mini and the Mini Moke).  I suppose that if this 'Guppy' was in development before the merger between Morris and Riley, we might find reference to it as Morris Guppy or Riley Guppy - but I don't get any hits for either of those either. SteveBaker 21:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that these days motorised wheelbarrows are quite common; see google images. Or as we say in the States, motorized. --Justanother 16:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - this thing looks more like a miniature landing craft - with an outboard motor on the back and four balloon tyres for use on land. The photo has Sir Alec Issigonis sitting in this thing - it looks like it's maybe six feet long and three feet wide.  But I'm not sure that this is the 'Nuffield Guppy'.  According to the Issigonis biography, he also designed a "lightweight reconnaissance vehicle (a kind of Jeep)...for the Ministry of Defence". If I could connect "Guppy" to "Wheelbarrow" then I'd have enough information to write a decent stub article but everything I read either talks about the Guppy without saying what it was - or talks about the Jeep-like thing or the Wheelbarrow thing without giving either a name.  I guess I may have to try to track down email addresses for some of these book authors and see if they can tell me anything more.  It's very frustrating! SteveBaker 21:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, just going on my gut (but I have a very good gut), I would say that the amphibious craft would have to be the Guppy. And a craft that someone sits in is quite different from a wheelbarrow, no? Forget the jeep-like vehicle, IMO, that is another project. Forget the wheelbarrow. The Guppy is the amphibian. (Puts crystal ball away). --Justanother 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's my guess too - but this is an encylopedia. It would be bad enough to have an unreferenced stub - but to have an unreferenced stub that's a guess would be unforgivable. SteveBaker 03:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, totally. I was not suggesting you guess in the article, just giving my guess as to the fruitful line of investigation and my guess as to probable outcome. Sorry if it did not come across that way! --Justanother 03:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)