Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 November 30

= November 30 =

"Most Metric" English-Speaking Country?
What would be, in your opinion, the "most metric" (by most metric I mean fully converted and with the oldest year of becoming metric) English-speaking country. I know that the US is still using imperial, and England is halfway there (eg their road signs are still imperial) - so they don't qualify - but what about other countries like Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada? I would say that Australia is definitely fully converted - although some of the people born before metric was phased in do think in imperial measurements, everything made today is made in metric. But are there any other English-speaking countries like Australia, but had converted before Australia did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the article on Metrication. It gives South Africa as 1967 and Australia as 1969. Manning (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely not Canada. About the only metric measurement that's enjoyed total acceptance in Canada is, ironically, Celsius for temperature, which the supposedly big benefit of metric -- the ability to convert into big and small measurements by using multiples of 10. There's no such thing as a kilodegree. Kilometers are pretty widely used in Canada as well, since they converted all the road signs 30 years ago. And they use liters for gas because $1 per liter looks cheaper than $4 per gallon. But in everyday use, most still use tablespoons, acres, square feet, pounds, etc. South Africa may be a good bet. South Africa may be a good bet. South Africans even use kilos and centimeters for weight and height. But while English is the lingua franca of the RSA, it's only the primary language of a small minority. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's interesting, given Canada's French/English official language policy, that you guys prefer the American spelling "liter" rather than the French "litre". I imagine the quebecois spell it "litre", non?  Australia is virtually fully metricated, except for newborn babies' weights and lengths, which are usually given in pounds and inches, even by parents who've lived all their lives under a metric system, and who in many cases couldn't tell you many inches there are in a foot, or how many pounds in a stone, etc.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Litre" and "metre" are the spellings adopted in Canada. I personally use "liter" and "meter" because I prefer American spelling generally, but I doubt there are many who follow this, even if Mwalcoff is another one. --Anon, 13:57 UTC, November 30, 2007.


 * Re: Mwalcoff, you are correct that English is the first language of a certain percentage of the population, English is nonetheless wide spoken and is widely the second language of everybody else. Re: OP, South Africa's metric system is quite implemented, we buy in killograms, grams, litres and millilitres, travel in killometeres and metres, and measure temperature in degrees celcius. Rfwoolf 10:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffculty with that spelling is that a 'meter' is a device to measure a given quantity like gas, water or electricity. Thus telling someone that the city centre is 12 measuring devices away is not much help! Or one could say that the meter is two meters tall and one meter wide unless it is located next to an existing meter.

Manning - that's not quite what I was looking for. Although I know there are dates available when a country officially is metric, that doesn't mean it is widely accepted. I want to find out what countries are pretty much fully metric, and approximately when it became publicly accepted. I'm sure it would have taken at least a few years from when a country officially became metric until metric was actually widely used and the people from those countries actually think in "metric". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Well I'm nearly 40, I went through primary school in the mid-70's and I've only ever thought in metric. I know that they stopped teaching "imperial" measurement in schools back in the 1980's. Does that help? Manning (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's going to be hard to find good data comparing how people in different countries think, and that's really what we're being asked about. --Anon, 14:00, November 30, 2007.

The UK is a charming jumble of all sorts of metric and imperial-clothes are measured in imperial,post is sized in metric.Road signs are in imperial,babies are weighed in imperial,petrol is sold in metric.It gets really bizarre at times-in building you can get a 2.5m length of 2' x 4 and temperature seems to use both-when it's cold it's freezing or 5 below(metric)yet when it's hot it's always in the seventies or eighties(imperial).The European Parliament God bless'em have announced today that Britain will be able to sell goods in both metric and imperial.I'm sure there's a link out there somewhere. Lemon martini 14:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're overstating it. Yes, there are still some things that are in imperial measurements - but that's mostly in areas where changing over is difficult and costly.  Things like speed limit signs are a major problem - there are perhaps a few tens of millions of them.  Figure the cost to replace them (including labour costs) is in the thousands of millions - and the issue of having to change them all at once on the same day - plus the advertising campaigns to tell people what's going to happen and the whining from people with older cars that don't have a kph scale...which politician is going to sign up for a billion pounds worth of pain for no return from the voters?  Anyone old enough to remember the grief when we switched over to decimal currency will testify to the difficulty.  However, we DO use metric where it matters - and we teach it in schools.


 * I certainly disagree about the temperature thing - I was taught the centigrade system in school in the UK and I think in centigrade. When we came to the US and everything is in bloody stupid (and hard to spell) pharhenheiet, it was a major effort to mentally convert.  (Actually, I really havn't converted, I just know that 32 is freezing, 70 is where I set my thermostat to and my kid is really sick if the thermometer reads much over 100.  Setting the temperature of my oven is a matter of reading what it says on the food labels - I have no 'gut feel' for that).  For example, I have no idea what temperature water boils at in this stupid system...and I doubt many other Brit's do either.


 * Contrast to the US situation. My wife used to be a nurse - she did the 'conversion' course so she could work here in the USA - so I got to hear a lot about this.  In Europe (including the UK), all medicines are labelled in grams.  The abbreviation for gram is (of course) 'g'.  Here in the US, medicines are generally labelled in 'grains' (wait for it...wait for it...) the symbol for which is 'g'.  Which means that all drugs entering or leaving the US theoretically need to be relabelled.  However, the Americans recognise the need to import drugs from abroad - and therefore to accept 'gram'-labelled drugs.   The SMART thing to do would be to require 'grain' labelled drugs to use a different abbreviation ('gr' is what was used in the UK before we started metrication) - but NOOOO!  They decided to require 'gram' labelled drugs to use 'gr' so that grains could still be 'g'.

This is MUCH worse than the situation beforehand because at least before, you'd see a 'g' on a bottle of drugs from overseas and say "hold on a minute - that must mean 'grams'"...but now, medical staff are trained to see 'g' as grains and 'gr' as grams - which means that when they DO get bottles that have 'g' for grams, they won't question it anymore. Since a grain is 15.432358 grams - it's really very easy to seriously overdose (or underdose) someone because the ratio isn't something obvious like 1000:1 where a pill would have to be the size of a football and you'd notice. No - drugs very often come in different strengths and 15:1 is just enough to be plausible - but plenty enough to be lethal. To not use the metric system is one thing - but to use a bastardized version of it where 'gr' means grams is quite something else! SteveBaker 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, a gram is equal to 15.432358 grains. That is, the grain is the smaller of the two (being 64.79891 mg). A 0.1 gram tablet holds more medicine than a 0.1 grain tablet, hence the problem with US nurses ODing their patients with European drugs -- 17:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops! Yep - you're right.  My bad. SteveBaker 20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, can you be more specific than "They decided" (to require this backwards labeling)? This is so silly I'd like to see it in black and white, and also to find out whether it's still in effect. Or in other words, and with no implication of disbelief, "citation needed". --Anonymous, 06:13 UTC, December 1.


 * I can certainly understand your skepticism - it's a crazy situation. The information came from the training materials provided to qualified overseas Nurses who wish to take the test to have their qualifications recognised in the State of Texas - about 5 years ago.  Sadly, I don't still have these books - nor a more accurate citation.  I recommend talking to the pharmacist at your local drug store. SteveBaker 16:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you've put me in the wrong country! See above. (grin) --Anon, 22:36 UTC, Dec. 1.


 * ?! My day job is transcribing medical reports, and the only things I've ever heard measured in grains were bullets. Drugs come in milligrams.  (I'm in California.)  &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

IIRC wasn't there a rocket that went walkabout or crashed where it shouldn't because one group of people were using metric and another imperial? Lemon martini 20:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes: Mars Climate Orbiter. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And see also Gimli Glider for what could have been a most disastrous conversion error when Canada was making the switch to metric. Matt Deres 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all what you're used to. Having spent several years in metric countries, I have no problems with kilograms and kilometers, but I will never get Celsius. I always have to do the conversion into Fahrenheit. Fahrenheit actually makes far more sense than Celsius for daily use. Temperatures in a typical year in New York range from 0 to 100 rather than the awkward -17 to 37. Celsius has two problems: The number are too low and too close together. So whereas Americans can say, "The temperature will be in the 20s all week," Canadians are stuck saying things like, "The temperatures will be in the low- to mid-single digits below zero." The use of Fahrenheit is also better for weather maps. Yes, it has an awkward boiling point for water (212 degrees), but how often do you really need that? -- Mwalcoff 00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm almost completely metric (educated in Australia in the 1980s), although I still use imperial for personal height and occasionally for some smallish measurements. I can handle feet and inches fine, but I'd never use yards, miles, pounds or fahrenheit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PETA on HBO
Am watching HBO, and they have, as of the time indicated HERE, a documentary about PETA and I saw what appears to be some police action going on. Is that Operation Backfire (FBI) going on ?

On a related note, I wanted to donate some money, only to be told that IF I DID, I'd have the US police/FBI "up my ass" for supporting terrorists such as PETA, ALF, EARTH FIRST!, ELF, other "animal rights nuts". How does one donate money w/o being tagged as "a terrorist supporting loon"/"encouraging those that drink Kool Aid"? 65.163.112.205 (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can the currently running documentary be used ? 65.163.112.205 (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The documentary is showing, as of 4 to 10 min ago, PETA endorsing ALF and other terrorists while police are shown arresting PETA and ALF personnel, houses burning up, worse. The documentary confirms that the FBI IS infiltrating them as they're infiltrating ALF and the like in Operation Backfire (FBI) and related operations. I'm watching it NOW. They just shown a undercover PETA operative in a chickenhouse, then it said he/she was caught and shot. The documentary is on HBO2. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Operation Backfire (FBI) has nothing to do with PETA, officially. While some members of the ALF clearly have been in contact with Ingrid Newkirk (see Ingrid Newkirk) and she was aware of their actions ahead of time, she is very careful about ensuring there is a divide between PETA and any illegal actions. You can currently contribute to PETA without fear of the US government accusing you of supporting terrorism, since it has tax exempt status. PETA say they do not fund illegal activities. They do admit contributing to the defense funds of people that have been accused of eco-terrorism though. In 1995 PETA donated $45,200 to the legal defense of Rod Coronado after he fire bombed Michigan State University. They also admint making a $1,500 donation to the Earth Liberation Front for a "project of habitat protection."


 * PETA do some very creative accounting, through their asset management foundation, the Foundation to Support Animal Protection (FSAP), which makes it difficult to track exactly what they do spend their money on. What PETA does is use FSAP to pay for its management and fundraising expenses, and to fund groups that would rather not be directly associated with PETA. Thus PETA itself can claim on its tax returns that it spends more of its money on "programs" (i.e. saving animals), because another organization pays their expenses. The clever part is that PETA fully funds FSAP, but they can list that as a program expense on their tax return. The net result of this is that PETA gets to disguise its non-program spending and so donors are unable to determine what proportion of their money actually goes into saving animals. Rockpock  e  t  06:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Before considering donating money to PETA - I would strongly advise you to watch the episode of Penn & Teller's "BS" show that was talking about PETA. (It's on YouTube: here - beware, bad language, etc). I've gone from thinking they were somewhat misguided but basically honest people - to realising that they are basically a bunch of raving lunatics. I certainly wouldn't give them money - regardless of whether that's funding terrorism or not!  But don't take my word for it - watch the show.


 * I would never give a penny to those people, whether they support "terrorists" or not. --Taraborn 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I Am An Animal - HBO Documentary
This is the name of the documentary referred to above in Re.:PETA on HBO question above. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Left vs. right
Is there anything in the physical world that has the property that something is inherently on the left, or on the right, and cannot be changed by any means? J I P | Talk 05:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cobalt-60; see parity (physics).
 * Is there anything such that can be seen by the naked eye? J I P  | Talk 06:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Florida is inherently on the right of the United States? Neil   ☎  09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't if you turn the map upside down (which has the added benefit of putting Australia at the top, as it should be).Manning 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Chirality -Arch dude (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In nature, most asymmetrical biological molecules exist in only one of the two possible 'handedness' variations. This is an odd and interesting fact about which there is much debate.  So if you make a mirror-imaged version of some fancy molecule, it behaves the same as the real thing in physical properties - it looks the same, weighs the same, has the same atoms inside, reacts the same way with simple symmetrical chemicals like water, oxygen, etc - but may be completely inert inside an animal built to use only the 'right-way-round' version.  Somehow, all life on earth has 'agreed' to use the same version of the molecule...this is a profound thing.  For one thing, it strongly backs up the idea that all life on earth evolved from a single  molecule of DNA/RNA.  SteveBaker 15:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not impossible by any stretch of the imagination to alter the chirality of a molecule, though. My smarmy answer to your question would be "the direction linearly polarized light is seen to rotate immediately after passing through L-(+)-tartaric acid" (or pick your own favorite chiral molecule). sh  &curren;  y  15:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm sure there are ways to chemically alter the chirality of a molecule - but it would be essentially impossible to flip the chirality of every asymmetrical molecule in every living thing on the planet - hence the overall preference of living things for one particular form is something that is both inherent and impossible to change. (Other than perhaps in some kind of bizarre thought-experiment - for sure it's impossible in practice).


 * The Sheri S. Tepper science-fiction story Grass explores this exact question of a multi-planetwide chirality flip. (Just FYI.)


 * Atlant 19:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * According to my copy of The Straight Dope, pigs have corkscrew-shaped penises, but Cecil Adams (the slacker) didn't know whether they spiraled in one direction exclusively. Clarityfiend 03:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Counterclockwise, looking distally, if anyone cares. --Joelmills 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God! There's an axe in my head!
A few years ago I came across the internet phenomenon which was 'Oh my God! There's an axe in my head!', a mission to translate the above phrase into as many languages as possible (including Klingon for some reason). I now notice there is a board game in development on this very topic. Is this a unique internet-meme/subject to board game crossover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.74.40 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite unique. Apparently Snakes on a Plane also gave rise to a board game: Cobras in the Cockpit.

Varmint Hunting w/pellet gun
I recently purchased a pellet gun, and wondered what office I should contact about varmint (squirrel, rabbit, maybe sparrows) hunting. I live in the North West Ohio/South East Michigan area. I'm hoping there are some hunters on wikipedia. Any and all help will be appreciated. -- MKnight  9989  13:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct term is vermin. 81.93.102.185 17:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahahaha no, both are used. :) Sorry about that. 81.93.102.185 17:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You need a small game hunting license from the state DNR (in Michigan, that's the MI DNR. You can buy licenses at most places that sell outdoor gear. In Michigan, that costs $15 (unless you are hunting only on your own property (if that is legally open for hunting) when you don't need a small-game license). Out-of-state hunters pay a larger fee ($69 to hunt small game in Michigan if you don't live there - and you can't hunt coyotes as residents can.) You also need to pass a hunter safety class, or be over a certain age, or have an apprentice hunter license and be in the field with a fully licensed hunter. Squirrels and rabbits have hunting seasons while sparrows can be hunted all year round. Rmhermen 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa thanks for all of the information bro! I had no idea I needed a license to hunt squirrels. thanks again man. --72.240.231.54 05:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How to join the Indian Military
I was wondering, how a current American Citizen could go about joining the Indian Military. I currently reside in Virginia in the United States, and wanted to join the military, but am not interested in my current locations action in military, and wanted to move into a much more stable and appreciating economy, such as India. If anyone can give me some information on how to go about getting into the Indian Military as an American Citizen, it would be greatly appreciated, Thankyou.


 * Are you even allowed to do that as a US citizen? Sign up for a foreign army?  I'm no expert - but our article on United States nationality law says: "Male U.S. citizens (including those living permanently abroad and/or with dual U.S./other citizenship) are required to register with the Selective Service System at age 18 for possible conscription into the armed forces. Although no one has been drafted in the U.S. since 1973, draft registration continues for possible reinstatement on some future date." - you cannot be available to serve if called upon to do so if you are signed up in a foreign military...so is this even legal?  Further down that same article, it says "As a historical matter, U.S. citizenship could be forfeited upon the undertaking of various acts, including...service in foreign armed forces..." - but goes on to say that this is no longer enforced...you'd better read it. SteveBaker 17:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Talk to a citizenship lawyer, first. Afterwards, if the Indian military is anything like ours, it has recruiters and induction centers, and only they will be able to give you current and proper information on enlisting.  Of course, those will be located in India, so you will be paying some fat long-distance bills, but you knew it was going to be a dangerous job before you signed up.  By the way, I have been told by Canadian military personnel that they get paid much more and are much more socially respected than their American counterparts -- and the commute from Virginia to Canada is a lot easier; you might consider them as a more tenable option. Faithfully, Deltopia 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that India is a relatively poor country, and that the standard of living is generally much lower than in the United States? Most Indians do not have sanitary running water in their homes, and many do not have electricity. Salaries are much lower, probably not enough to cover the cost of an air ticket back to the United States, so unless you have savings or a wealthy family, trips back to the United States may be difficult.  Also, while the Indian economy has expanded rapidly in recent years, I don't think that it can be considered more stable than the U.S. economy.  In fact, the economies of developing countries such as India tend to be unstable.  Most importantly, based on a few official Indian websites, it looks to me as though only Indian citizens are eligible for enlistment in the Indian military.  You might want to ask the Indian Army whether non-citizens are eligible for enlistment.  Here is a link to their query form.  Marco polo 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you click on "Procedure" on this page, you will see that a sepoy, or private, gets a starting salary of 3050–4650 rupees per month. This works out to $77–$117 per month.  This would be in addition to your basic food, clothing, and shelter.  The cheapest airfares between Dulles airport and New Delhi, India, are around $1200 roundtrip, or close to a full year's pay.  Presumably, you would also need to cover your transportation to the airport, you will probably have to pay some Indian taxes, and you might want to spend your money on something other than airfare, so you would not be able to travel home every year on that pay.  Marco polo 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that prices for various essentials and things are also cheaper. Malamockq 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree with most of what others have written - I can't agree that India's economy is unstable. Head over to http://finance.yahoo.com/currency, set the timescale up to 5 years and look at the relative value of the Rupee and (say) the Euro - the two currancies have been within 5% of each other for 5 years.  Now compare the US dollar with the Euro - this tells a sorry story about the US economy.  On this measure (there are others), I'd say that the OP is correct in assuming that the Indian economy is currently much more stable than that of the US.  However stability is not the same as standard of living...and that's what matters here.  SteveBaker 16:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetic clock face?
I have recently heard that advertisers selling watches or clocks always position the time at ten minutes to two, as this is the most aesthetically pleasing time. Is this true, and why? 80.7.122.4 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is actually a frequently-asked question here so you can find discussion of it in the Reference Desk archives. There used to be a Wiki article on the topic but the deletionists (who don't have to answer questions on the Reference Desk, apparently) zapped the article as non-notable.


 * Atlant 19:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The archived answers do little more than point to this Straight Dope article, which doesn't have much more information. Clearly someone needs to research this thoroughly and rewrite the article.--Shantavira|feed me 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, rewrite the article. Just don't do it on Wikipedia. There are other websites that I'm sure would like the info. Recury 19:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why this information shouldn't be on wikipedia. Perhaps not in an article on it's own. But it's certainly suitable in general articles on clocks and watches. - 87.211.75.45 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The time is usually said to be 10:10 (although if I recall, the Wikipedia article was called 10:08. Often you will see advertisements with digital clocks set to 10:10 as well.  Sorry for the "original research".  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise, Larry. Unlike our articles, there's no ban on OR at the ref desk.  --  JackofOz 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's my own personal ban, I attempt to answer with appropriate references. Not that it matters, but 10:10 was the first thing I ever looked up on Wikipedia (before it got a name change and then deleted).  -- LarryMac  | Talk  22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Our deleted article also linked to this Rockpock  e  t  02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting to see that the deletion discussion for 10:08 is showing as a redlink - are the deletionists trying to hide something? DuncanHill 08:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's the only logical conclusion. That or they just typed it in wrong, but what are the chances of that happening? Damn deletionists! Recury 17:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So... tempted... to... join... the... chorus.... can't! Rfwoolf 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Casual Browsers
I am one of the many people who like to click on the "Random Article" button and see what comes up. I think it would be really interesting if there was a "Most Viewed" list/option. Then I can read the articles that people are looking up the most often... just a thought to make the best even better!
 * This page gives the most viewed pages recently by views per day. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, it's a lot less interesting than you'd hope and it's a sad, sad condemnation of the general public's intellect.


 * In the top 40, if you eliminate all of the schoolkids looking for porn and people looking up their favorite TV shows/video games, then it's basically (in order): Harry Potter fans, Wikipedia itself, and "United States", "Luciano Pavarotti"(!?!), "Hypertext Transfer Protocol", "World War II", "Adolf Hitler", "New York City" and "United Kingdom". Basically, this says that aside from pop culture and porn, people are typing in rather obvious search terms just to see what's here.  The presence of "Hypertext Transfer Protocol" on the list is interesting.  I suspect that people are accidentally cutting and pasting URL's into the search box.  Since they start with "http" and that redirects to "Hypertext Transfer Protocol" - that's probably where this comes from.


 * What I think you probably want is not the top 100 most popular pages but the 100 most recently accessed pages - sadly, I don't think we have that. SteveBaker 15:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Continents
So, I always learned that there were seven continents in the world. But then I came across Zealandia (continent), which is apparently the continent that New Zealand is on. That makes eight. I had always assumed that all those islands in the Pacific were part of the "continent" Australia, but I guess scientifically it makes sense that they're not because they're not on the same continental shelf. Sure, they're in the region Oceania, but that's not a continent. So what continent is something like Tuvalu on? Thanks, Fbv65 e del — t — c // 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of Continents is entirely conventional. Go to the talk page of the continent article and you find as many definitions as you could ever want. Cheers Geologyguy 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In particular, note the bit on "Extent of continents". No matter which continents you count as existing, it's perfectly reasonable to say that a place like Tuvalu isn't part of any of them. --Anonymous, 01:06 UTC, December 1, 2007.


 * Zealandia is certainly not widely recognized as a continent, even if it does contain continental rock. Marco polo 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, had no idea there was such debate over this. Thanks a lot! --Fbv65 e del — t — c // 18:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you have a few spare months for some insane arguing, make sure you raise the "Australia: island, continent or both?" debate. (PS - it's a continent, not an island, and anyone who says otherwise is a Nazi.)Manning 06:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But be very sure to state exactly what you're talking about. According to Wikipedia - and we're never wrong - the Australian nation and the Australian continent are not coterminous.  "Australia" refers not only to (a) the land mass and country that includes NSW, ACT, Vic, Qld, SA, WA, NT and Tas; but also to (b) a continent that apparently extends beyond these places to include the island of New Guinea.  Don't believe me?  Check out Australia (continent).  --  JackofOz 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Golf - shooting under your age
Yesterday, at the New Zealand Golf Open, Sir Bob Charles, the 1963 British Open winner, shot a four under par 68 - three under his age. This prompted me to consider the following questions:
 * Has anyone ever shot under their age at one of the four Majors - or at any tour event, for that matter?
 * What is the youngest that anyone has shot under their age?

Thanks in advance, Grutness...wha?  22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That, and more, is answered, here. Rockpock  e  t  23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Brilliant! Thanks again, Grutness...wha?  23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)