Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 June 1

= June 1 =

Geography
What are the jobs that are related to Geography?
 * According to the article, mostly engineering- and analysis-type jobs are available in that area. V-Man - T/C 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These days Geographic information systems are widely used and a lot of people are employed in the ever-growing field. Of course, the work tends to be computer database management and software/web programming, just like every other field these days it seems. Pfly 06:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It also depends which area of geography you enter. Obviously, there are academic jobs.  Beyond that, there are jobs with government agencies managing the environment.  Geography is a good preparation for graduate study in city and regional planning, which leads to planning careers.  Geography is useful in some areas of marketing and logistics.  I myself have a geography degree and have ended up (for the time being) in educational publishing, where my geography training gives me valuable content expertise.  One of my former colleagues, a climatologist, is now a television reporter on the Weather Channel (a U.S. television channel specializing in weather). If you study climatology (a subfield of geography), a career as a meteorologist is an option.  Marco polo 17:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned from Redstate
Since the kind folks at RedState seem to be unwilling to reply, I will post this here in hopes that someone knows anything about this. It seems I have been banned (without warning) for no stated reason. I had been arguing that a certain blogger's support of the French Revolution while discussing the merits of the Iraq War was rather bizarre coming from a supposed "conservative". The original poster replied with personal attacks and accused me of "mobying". I was subsequently banned. Being a conservative myself, I am wondering why I have been banned. I am also wondering what "mobying" means. The post in question --71.189.165.175 02:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From Googling "," it seems to have something to do with the musician Moby and his remarks about posing as one party to make the other party look good. Perhaps you have been accused of misrepresenting the conservative movement? V-Man - T/C 03:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently the possibility of an anti-war conservative seems absurd to them for some reason. I guess Paleoconservatism is a liberal conspiracy. --71.189.165.175 03:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is in no position to know what goes on in other websites, or what rules they adopt. I think this is something you need to take up with the administrators of Redstate.  I appreciate you've already asked them.  I think any site that blocks people for unstated reasons and doesn't respond to questions about why the block was put in place, is not really worth spending much time on.  Wikipedians sometimes get blocked here, but they always know exactly why.  --  JackofOz 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the "original poster" European? The term "mobbing" (but pronouncing with a long "o") is used in German to mean harassment of one person by several others, for example, in a work environment where a clique makes a point of treating an individual badly. A more involved discussion can be found here. W. B. Wilson 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Blue moon
Since tonight is a blue moon (going from the definition of 2 full moons in a calendar month), I was wondering, what is the maximum number of blue moons in a year? 68.231.151.161 05:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See Blue moon. It seems the term "blue moon" is ill-defined, but in the sense I think you mean, while there are normally 12 full moons every year, every 2.72 years on average there are 13 of them.  There are never more than 13, which means there can only ever be at most 1 blue moon in any one year.  JackofOz 05:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)  ... except when there's no full moon at all in February, in which case both January and March will have a blue moon. (acknowledgments to my friends below for this correction)  JackofOz 13:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Quote from Blue moon. The months of the Gregorian calendar are all very close to the 29.5306-day period of the moon's phases: the synodic month, or lunation. Most of the months are longer than this by one or two days, except February, which is the only month which cannot contain a calendar blue moon. Since February is one or two days shorter than the moon's cycle, very occasionally it has no full moon – there is a full moon at the end of January, and the next one is at the beginning of March. What this means is that both January and March will have blue moons. This happens, on average, once every thirty-five years." -- SGBailey 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All the math is beyond me; I have troubles with counting. However, this site says that two in a year are possible, but only every 400-500 years. Leap year comes into it somehow. Bielle 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Look again: it says ";four or five times in a hundred years", which is more than one in 35 but in the same ballpark. &mdash;Tamfang 07:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It last happened in 1999. It next happens in 2037.--Shantavira|feed me 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the third full moon of a month called?
 * Unlikely. V-Man - T/C 21:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

sensors and transducers used in the ship control system
what sensors and transducers are used in the ship control system,and where on the ship they are used,what is their working principle and which companies supplies them in the market,and how they are maintained?


 * Too many questions and too much like homework, I think, to raise an answer. And, indeed, too many sensors. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Is gold Quest legal and safe?
some days ago, one of my friend informed me about the company Gold Quest. They are demanding Rs/-30000, for a gold coin(market value Rs/-15000-16000) and if I can recruit another 3+3 people for them, they will pay me Rs/-11000 and this chain will continue. This company belongs to Hong-Kong. I want to know, is this legal in India and is it at all safe? &mdash;Betaj 12:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help me as I am very confused.Betaj 12:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not sound like an arrangement that can ever benefit all customers; it is analogous to a ponzi scheme, in that you make a return if you introduce others to the scheme. I opine that it is of dubious legality in most jurisdictions and very very unlikely to be safe. One to avoid, I think. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * You might find our article on pyramid schemes to be helpful. The company claims that it is legit, but it has been accused of being a pyramid scheme, and has been banned in Iran, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. I found news stories out of Iran and Nepal that do not report positively on the experiences that Gold Quest investors have had. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds like multi-level marketing, not a pyramid scheme. It is probably legal, but you are unlikely to be able to recruit enough people. Neon  Merlin  18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's merely MLM, why is the sucker being asked to buy the goods for twice their value? &mdash;Tamfang 20:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's obviously a pyramid scheme - which would make it illegal in many countries in the world. Don't join it - you're either going to lose 15k - or someone you recruit will - either way, it's not good.  The problem with pyramid schemes is that only the people at the top of the pyramid can 'win'.  The more people are recruited, the fewer 'suckers' there are left to be at the end of the chain - all of those people lose out horribly in order to make the people at the top of the chain money.  Trust me when I tell you that you aren't at the top of the pyramid! So it's certainly not safe - whether it's legal or not depends on your local laws.  I know it would be illegal in the USA or UK.  SteveBaker 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. In a pyramid scheme, assuming EVERYONE continues the chain until a certain generation, at least 80% of the participants get screwed -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 20:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Digestion of steak
Some website I read a while ago claimed that a steak takes 9 months to digest. That's complete bullshit, right?


 * Right. Imagine what would happen if you ate, say, five large steaks within 9 months, if that were the case. --140.247.248.42 14:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is AFAIK possible for bits of fecal matter to remain in the large intestine for very long periods; the supporters of Colon hydrotherapy make claims that they manage to extract old bits of gristle through that process. But that aside, digested or undigested, that steak will for the most part pass through your digestive tract in a matter or a couple of days or so. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * I imagine what this means is that someone once put beef samples in a flask of stomach acids and watched until no solids were visible. &mdash;Tamfang 21:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What does the steak digest that takes so long ?86.197.17.24 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)DT
 * The large chunks that you don't chew well enough, usually. V-Man - T/C 17:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The steak doesn't digest anything.

What websites are good
What websites are good other than Wikipecia.


 * What a nice implied compliment! As for "good", it means, as in most cases, "good for what?" It depends on what you want to do with the web. If you want to buy things online, there are good and bad sites for that. If you want gaming advice, there are good and bad sites for that. If you want news about gadgets, there are good and bad sites for that. And so on. --140.247.248.42 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of the most popular websites can be found at Alexa. Josh Holloway  15:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pokey the Penguin. Recury 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While we're on the subject of penguins, I spend a lot of time at Ubuntuforums.org. Personally I'd rather play a good MMO than be on websites though -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 18:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I like http://www.watching-grass-grow.com/ and http://www.watching-paint-dry.com/ —Keenan Pepper 07:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly Wikipedia is pretty darned amazing - but if you look at (say) the most visited sites by American users, we're not the most popular. The ranking (as of today) is:
 * Yahoo!
 * Google
 * Myspace
 * Microsoft Network (MSN)
 * YouTube
 * EBay
 * Thefacebook
 * Craigslist
 * Wikipedia
 * (You get vastly different results if you look at UK visitors or something - but if you look at world-wide rankings, you get a lot of chinese language sites that probably aren't what our questioner wants)
 * So if we ignore the search engines, we're the sixth most popular in the USA. Those that are more popular (does that equate to 'better'?) ones are Myspace (a social network where people can set up webpages, etc), YouTube (where you can watch a lot of kooky videos and talk about them), Ebay (buying and selling your 'stuff'), Facebook (another 'social network') and Craigslist (look up businesses, classified ads, etc). But it all depends on what you want.  Your personal interests might radically change your opinions.  If you are into movies (for example) then IMDB might be a site you'd prefer over Wikipedia for looking up movies.  If you're a computer geek - then you might crave news at Slashdot rather than reading WikiNews.  There are lots of specialist sites that are better than Wikipedia within their niche.  But as a completely generalised source for everything - it's pretty clear that Wikipedia wins hands-down. SteveBaker 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For a good time, purple.com. - AMP&#39;d 01:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

NFL
Who is the tallest person in the NFL? Also, who is the player that weighs the least?

Jonathan Ogden is 6'9", I think he is tallest currently. Recury 18:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Roscoe Parrish weighs 168 pounds. He is the smallest I've found looking through the rosters on NFL.com (I'm bored at work). Recury 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Defensibility of the bottom of a trench
During trench warfare, wouldn't it have been easy to open a raid of the enemy trench by digging tunnels across no man's land, to either intersect the enemy trench or lay explosives under it? Neon Merlin  18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, basically! Recury 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some info as it relates to trench warfare here as well. Recury 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Easy" is not the word to choose. 200 yards in soil under a battlefield cannot be easy in anybody's terms. And, Of Course, miners from the coal mines were used to dig and bomb the enemy. Equally both sides were alert to the danger and kept tunnel watches as best they could. (In old castles dishes of water were placed near the walls so underground vibration would be detected.) But "easy" never!!86.219.36.29 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)DT

Where did the barbarians go?
If the Roman Empire fell to "the barbarians", where did the barbarians go? Is it true that we (modern Europeans) are the descendants of those same peoples?

Elinde7994 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I bet if you asked this in Humanities that Clio would give you an lengthy and entertaining answer but here you just get directed the article because I don't know anything about anything. It says "The term "barbarian" is commonly used by medieval historians as a non-pejorative neutral descriptor of the catalog of peoples that the Roman Empire encountered whom they considered "foreigners", such as the Goths, Gepids, Huns, Picts, Sarmatians, etc." which I think supports your thesis. Recury 19:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A good idea would to read the articles Goths, Huns, and other barbarian tribe articles. -- Tλε Rαnδоm Eδι  τ  оr   21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It was partly a matter of perception. If you were a Roman being attacked by them, they certainly seemed like a group of uncivilized savages, but if you lived in their home towns they probably seemed similar to other civilized people. On the other hand, if you were a "barbarian" captured in battle by the Romans and about to be killed for sport in the Coliseum to the cheers of the crowd, you likely wouldn't find the Romans to be very "civilized", either.

Many "barbarians" also eventually adopted many of the Roman ways, like the Latin alphabet, so became more Roman over time. To look at just one group of "barbarians", those north of Hadrian's Wall eventually became the Scots, and, to this day, are rather distinct from the rest of Great Britain. They could be thought of as a bit more "earthy" than the English, so there is perhaps a bit of the old barbarian spirit still left in them. StuRat 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Och StuRat, ye will regret that slight on me noble forbears, ya puny sasenach! ; ) Mhicaoidh 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas, I fear his days are numbered! He'll be kilt for sure. Clarityfiend 06:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * StuRat made a mistake!! What?? Never!! I don't believe it!!! Oh yes he did!! Hadrian's Wall doesn't separate England from Scotland and never did. And neither does or did the more northerly Antonine Wall that runs East to West across Central Scotland from the River Forth to the River Clyde as it passes through my home town of Falkirk. Both walls were built at the command of different Roman Emperors to keep out the marauding northern tribes (not necessarily Scots) then accustomed to attacking the Roman occupation of Britain. Neither wall succeeded in achieving that objective of course and long after the Romans left for home, the English and the Scots, with help from the Irish, Welsh, French, Belgians, Germans, and others, continued to battle over the Border issue. Just look at Berwick upon Tweed which changed hands umpteen times with murderous loss of life in the process. Today, Berwick is just on the English side of the Border, yet strangely, it's soccer team plays in the Scottish League. So the best that can be said, for the Antonine Wall at least, is that for a relatively short period of time, it marked the northern extremity of the Roman Empire. Sorry StuRat.


 * The original "Scots" came from Ireland, rather later. &mdash;Tamfang 21:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Migration Period article is another good place to start. As to "where did the barbarians go?" and "are we (modern European) .. descendents on those .. peoples?" -- a short answer is "they settled down in various parts of Europe" and "yes". A more complex answer would point out exceptions. For some of the so-called barbarians, their connection to modern European nations can be seen in their names. The Franks and France, for example; the Bulgars and Bulgaria; the Magyar (Hungarians) and Hungary; the Lombards and Lombardy in Italy; the Angles and England and England's East Anglia; the Saxons and Saxony, as well, in England, Essex, Wessex, and Sussex. Others less obvious from names alone: The Visigoths ended up in Spain and southern France; the Ostrogoths in Italy; and the Jutes, from Jutland, in southeast England. The Vandals gave their name to the Spanish region of Andalusia. I'm not sure what the ultimate fate of the Vandals was. The Vikings, or Norsemen, a term encompassing many sub-groups, settled lastingly in parts of England (eg, Northumbria and much else), Scotland, Ireland, Italy, France (eg, Normandy), and many other places.

This nutshell history is overly simple, especially as later migrations altered populations (eg, the Moorish conquest of Visigothic Spain). But in response to the question, many of the "barbarians" settled down and remained. Pfly 04:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Modern Europeans' descent is quite complicated, but tests of the gene pools of European communities generally suggest that most people in the community are mainly descended from a mix of the earliest inhabitants, who arrived before the agricultural revolution, and the migrants who probably brought agriculture to the region, probably as part of the Danubian expansion. Gene pools do show traces of later arrivals, such as the Roman soldiers awarded land in what are now Spain, France, and Serbia, or the "barbarians" who were the ruling elite in many places after the fall of the Roman empire. However, the post-Roman "barbarians" were actually rather small minorities in most places where they settled, and most modern Europeans who traced their ancestry back 1500 years would find that most of their ancestors were the ancient inhabitants of their native regions. Just a few of their ancestors from 1500 years ago would have been "barbarian" invaders.  Obviously the big exception would be the homelands of these "barbarians", such as Germany.  But the same principle applies.  The ancestry of most Germans from 1500 years ago would consist mainly of people speaking Germanic dialects and living in the present-day territory of Germany.  Marco polo 15:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Vandals apparently settled in and around Carthage.

Circumcision
See circumcision. Some trolling was added, removed, re-added, and then fed. I've refectored this section to that it still contains the relevant link, but taken out the trolling and feeding. Friday (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)