Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 October 22

= October 22 =

Faint, head-rush feeling when standing up
You know sometimes when youve been sitting down for a while, and then you stand up, you sometimes get an intense head-rush/fainting feeling, like your gonna pass out? I presume this does happen to lots of people not just me? is there a name for it? why does it happen? i get it quite often, and sometimes when ive not been sitting down. i rather enjoy the feeling actually. Once it happened while i was lifting a dumbbell, and it became as light as a feather momentarily. why? Willy turner 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * High Blood Pressure?--88.110.33.229 06:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the phenomena is called postural hypotension and is not typically a symptom of high blood pressure, quite the opposite infact. (the above answer is a good example of why we shouldn't offer medical advice.) This article explains why it happens :


 * Normally, when you stand up blood tends to pool in the veins in your legs. This is stopped by nerves, which contract the veins in your legs ensuring that enough blood returns to your heart and that there is no reduction in the amount of blood that your heart pumps. This maintains the blood supply to your brain. However, if there is pooling of blood in your veins, less blood returns to your heart and less is pumped out which means a reduction in the amount of blood going to your brain. This causes symptoms of dizziness and some people may faint. This is exactly what happens to guards on parade when they faint because they have been standing in one position for too long. You can mimic this effect when you squat down for a while, for instance when looking at books on a low shelf, and then stand up suddenly.


 * If you are concerned that is it a symptom of an underlying medical condition, see a doctor. Rockpock  e  t  06:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Accessing Wikipedia entry through major search engines
To Whom It May Concern,

Could you please let me know when and how the entries made into Wikipedia become available on the major search engines. I recently updated two articles on Wikipedia and when I tried searching for them on yahoo, neither came up as a link for the searched topic. I am not sure whether I am missing a step in making my entries available to the search engines. I would be most thankful if you could clarify this for me.

Sincerely, DenverU 08:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's a question you need to ask the Search Engines, not Wikipedia. As soon as you save your edit it is 'live' on the internet, and available immediately to search engines. How often the search engines trawl Wikipedia and update their databases is their issue. It's also possible that the articles you are editing simply don't rank highly in the search engines or with the search terms you are using, but rest assured it is nothing you are doing wrong here that is the problem. For what it's worth I have found edits I have made in Wikipedia in Google searches within less than a day. --jjron 08:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll echo Jjron's answer and note that we don't control when or how often Google (or another search engine) indexes our pages. It will help, however, if the Wikipedia article is linked to from other Wikipedia pages.  Appropriate internal wikilinks will help readers of Wikipedia and search engine spiders find new articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When you create a new web page (not on wikipedia, just generally) that has some links to it, it usually takes Google about six weeks to get to it and index it. On the other hand, when a new story appears on a really popular website like Slashdot, it's indexed within a day, because this is completely new information that's most relevant right after the story is posted. While wikipedia is a very highly ranked website, the changes are small and incremental, so there's no need to index the new information right away. I would guess it takes about a week for a change to an article of average importance to get into Google. risk 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The way search engines work is that they have massive banks of computers that gradually read every single page on the Internet and add it into their index (this is called 'spidering the web'). However, the Internet is awfully big - 2 million pages of English-language Wikipedia alone!  So it takes even the best and fastest collections of machines weeks and weeks to spider all of it and rebuild their indices.  Sometimes you get lucky and add the new information just before the spider pays it's visit to that page and the new information pops up in a day or two - other times it takes well over a month.  The smaller search engines tend to take longer because they have less resources to devote to doing it - so on the average, you'll see your page come up sooner on Yahoo and Google than many of the others.   Some search engines specialise in certain sorts of pages or are smart enough to recognise the kinds of page that change frequently and have those pages spidered more often - at the cost of the more static/less-accessed pages being re-indexed less often.  But there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it - it'll happen when it happens and not before! SteveBaker 18:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Where's the wheel?
Hello, I've just learned about Fifth wheel coupling (we don't call it like that in German) and I wonder why it is called so. Where's the wheel #5? Thank you, --Wolli-j 11:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As the article notes, the term dates from horsedrawn days. The "fifth wheel" is the pivot which allows the front wheels to steer into corners. It's not really a wheel as such, but it is an axle and something pivoting around it. Here is a photo of such an arrangement. FiggyBee 12:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes it a lot clearer to me. Thanks a bunch! --Wolli-j 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

M249
Isn't it kind of stupid to have a SAW that uses 5.56*45mm NATO round? I understand they don't want over-penetration in urban enviroments where civilians are in close proximity to hostiles, but it seems like they could move up to the 7.62*51mm round. --MKnight9989 14:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are logistical and tactical benefits to having the SAW use the same ammunition as the squad's assault rifles. The smaller ammunition also weighs less, which I believe is the main consideration - the M240 and its ammunition is simply too heavy to lug around all day. FiggyBee 14:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Squad automatic weapon, in case anyone cared. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In short, the SAW was designed mainly to provide squad level suppressive fire instead of full-scaled obliteration. Acceptable 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Modern infantry maneuver combat commonly occurs at short ranges with moving targets. At these ranges, a 5.56 round does as much damage as 7.62.  The rifle has less recoil which means it can sustain a higher rate of fire, important for moving targets.  The lighter round means more ammunition can be carried.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  06:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2 girls 1 cup
What is it...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.187.66 (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a shock site aimed at disgusting people. Skittle 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aimed at causing disgust in people, or aimed at people who are disgusting? --Masamage ♫ 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As soon as I clicked 'save', I realised I'd need to specify verb and not adjective, but then the error came. Skittle 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps both? From a google search it suggests these individuals are stuck in the anal stage of Freud's description of development. I've not subjected myself to the watch, so may well be wrong. ny156uk 18:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a web site depicting coprophilia, more specifically human coprophagia. MrRedact 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting someone pregnant
Is it possible for a girl to avoid pregnancy by being on top? I heard that gravity plays a role that makes it harder for the sperm to travel upwards. Thanks! 68.143.88.2 18:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sperm can live (and travel) for days. So, no, this is not an effective means of birth control. Friday (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 100% agreed - this is an urban legend. If it was as easy as that to avoid getting pregnant - the world would be a very different place! SteveBaker 18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I strongly recommend that you not rely on the fictional stoners in Knocked Up for medical advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no sex positions that can prevent pregnancy. This is one of a number of common misconceptions about birth control.  MrRedact 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * However, 69 (sex position) is pretty ineffective at getting the woman pregnant unless the woman retrieves the semen from her mouth and transfers it elsewhere.


 * Atlant 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. I just meant various intercourse positions, not oral sex positions.  MrRedact 00:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a complete fallacy. You can get pregnant in any position. Not to mention :-


 * You can get pregnant the first time you have sex.
 * You can get pregnant during your period.
 * You can get pregnant even if you haven't started your periods.
 * You can get pregnant if he pulls out before ejaculation.
 * The only 100% foolproof method is not to have sex. Even the very best birth control has a chance of failure. Exxolon 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, but responsible use of birth control—much less simultaneous use of multiple forms of control (she takes the pill, he wears condoms) can make the chances of accidental pregnancy low enough to be almost negligible. If one is having sex, one should be using protection and be well-educated about it. Unfortunatley abstinence-only education and advocacy results more often in complete failure to use birth control at all when youths have sex (which is common no matter what kind of education one uses), which is about the worst possible scenario. --24.147.86.187 23:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I strongly believe in sex education, use of birth control and responsibility. I think abstinence only programs are asinine and I certainly don't advocate this approach. However it is a statement of fact that if you have sex there is always a chance, however miniscule, of a pregnancy resulting. I read about a case where a woman had gone through the menopause, the man had had a vasectomy and they used a condom and she still managed to get pregnant. Exxolon 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Had gone through the menopause" is a little vague, since periods gradually become increasingly erratic and infrequent for years before they stop altogether. More importantly, assuming statistical independence, we can multiplying the typical-use failure rates of a vasectomy and condom use to give a combined real-world failure rate of only about 0.02%.  In comparison, somewhere in the ballpark of 20% of women have had extramarital sex.  So the probability that the woman has had an affair is about 1000 times greater than the probability that both the vasectomy and condom use failed.  If I were in that man's shoes, I'd be demanding a paternity test.  MrRedact 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The risk of pregnancy while using some effective form of birth control is certainly much less than with having intercourse with no form of birth control. See Comparison of birth control methods.  You also can't get pregnant from oral sex, unless she accidently dribbles some of the semen onto her labia or something.  MrRedact 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An addition to the list: You can get pregnant while breastfeeding. It's surprising how many unwanted pregnancies are caused by that one. risk 23:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, although it's not 100% perfect, under the proper conditions the lactational amenorrhea method can work quite well. See Comparison of birth control methods.  MrRedact 02:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The only sex position that is 100% safe is when you lie back on the bed with the handset in your hand having phone sex when your partner is a minimum of 100 miles away :P  WebHamste r  20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That table at the bottom of Comparison of birth control methods is rather unclear. It gives the changes of getting pregnant during the first year. But doesn't that depend heavily on the frequency with which a couple have sex? Wouldn't it make more sense to give the chances of getting pregnant for one intercourse? Of course, that may depend on other factors, such as 'that time of the month'. But one can just average that out. And anyway, over a year you still have that problem. At the very least the table should say how often the couple have sex. Assuming it's one steady couple, another complication. What use is this to a couple having a one night stand? Especially they would want to know their risks. DirkvdM 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the article was going to be worked on but the guy that was going to do it pulled out at the last moment.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  09:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like he's got the rhythm of this conversation then.  WebHamste r  12:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand - Kaikora North to Otane
In what year did Kaikora North change its name to Otane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.136.29 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A book that i read a while ago
i asked this question about a year ago and no one could help me, so i'm gonna ask again. There was this one book that i read, and it was about this guy that was about 15 or 16 and he wanted to join the army during world war 2. His brother had bad eyesight, and could not go, so he joined under his brothers name. He made this friend, charlie or chucky (i can't remember but i'm pretty sure its one of those) who was later killed during a mission. He was a pilot, and during one of his missions, his plane was shot down, and all of his friends were killed. He landed in Germany, and was almost killed. he made his way to a hospital and was later sent to the U.S of A. He had a girlfriend that he had met earlier, but had lied about his age. He then tells her how old he is and she still decides to stay with him (eww). That was basically all i could remember, but it was one of my favorite books. I'm not asking for u guys to look for it in google or anything, just if you know the book or not. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.173.213 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it that you can't remember the title? --Masamage ♫ 21:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like The Last Mission, by Harry Mazer. It's still in print in a Laurel Leaf paperback edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrionak (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sine Bot, YOUR MY HERO!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.192.197 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, glad to see so much love for the bot that signs unsigned comments! :) (I think User:Catrionak is the one you meant to thank) -Elmer Clark 00:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But *I* would like to thank Sine Bot for covering for me on my very first Reference answer!Catrionak 18:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Media Ownership
Someone recently told me the whole (90%+ of newspapaers and TV) of the media is owned by 7 people, 4 of whom he named as Rupert Mordock, Silvio Berlusconi, Ted Turner and Haim Saban. Is this true, if not what is true, and if so then how do we know there isn't a media conspiracy?

Thanks, Quincel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.9.220 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Start at Concentration of media ownership --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The concentration of media ownership doesn't imply a conspiracy...Look at the huge variety of opinions/stand-points that the media companies owned by News Corporation has. It ranges (in the Uk) from libertarian to populist, right-wing liberal to mildly national-social. The hard-reality is that to sell newspapers/media you have to push a vision that people believe. Now many will get some parts of their beliefs from these outlets (so there will be an element of influence) but the media also by and large holds up a mirror of its readership. Do the media make you what your newspaper says or do you make the newspaper say what you think? Who knows for sure, but certainly there is an `amount of both. The sheer volume of variety of medias is wide enough to account for virtually all tastes. In short - the conspiracy is (as most conspiracies are) pretty weak. Many will (perhaps reasonably) complain about the mass-ownership of media but really in the business environment to survive you largely have to provide to the demands of the consumer, the media needs viewers to sell papers/magazines/tv-shows, and without the viewers they won't get it. ny156uk 23:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that the control is there. If a political party threatened or paid News Corp to be super pro-that-party then they've just cornered a masssssssive percentage of the media -- ⁪ffroth 00:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that less scary? It's ok because the media tell us what we want to hear? What about the plain truth? (in so far as there is such a thing)
 * In concordance with Froth, too much power in too few hands is always a very bad idea. Like with a dictatorship (or, rather, an oligarchy) - even if the present dictator can withstand corruption, who is going to succeed him?
 * One consolation: they don't control the Internet. Or do they? At least they don't control Wikipedia and, more relevant here, Wikinews. Nor can they ever. Right?
 * This is an exceedingly important issue. All cars in the world being produced by just a few companies is one thing. But our societies depend very heavily on information, through democracy and the free market. Our dollar voting power is already heavily corroded by commercials. But misleading voters is potentially much more dangerous. A large chunk of the media suddenly giving only one side of the story is scary enough. But if people only get positive feedback about their preconceptions then an important basis for democracy is rendered invalid. The Internet may be the only solution, but only if it forces people from different standpoints to interact. Such as on wikis and other broad-spectrum message boards and chatrooms and such. But they also need a neutral source for basic information. Maybe the media should be handed over to scientists, but I don't see how that could be put into practise. DirkvdM 06:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, the wisdom of the Harry Potter series: "So the Daily Prophet exists to tell people what they want to hear?" "The Prophet exists to sell itself, you silly girl." Skittle 07:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot that is all very helpful and exactly what I was looking for. Cheers, Quincel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.9.220 (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worth pointing out that while News Corp. is controlled by the Murdoch family, Viacom by the Redstones, Tribune Co. by Sam Zell and The New York Times Company by the Ochs family, GE, Disney, Time Warner and Gannett are each widely held, with no one person or family controlling them. So while the media in the U.S. may be concentrated in the hands of a few corporations, it's a stretch to say it's in the hands of a few people. -- Mwalcoff 01:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most media outlets also have a policy of editorial independence - journalists can be a cantankerous lot and don't appreciate being leant on by proprietors. FiggyBee 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But they can get fired. So the media will replace them with whoever wants to write the stories the way they want them to be written. So we not only get biased, but likely also amateuristic journalism. DirkvdM 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever worked for a newspaper, Dirk? It very rarely works like that. -- Mwalcoff 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I work at a radio station now, but that's irrelevant. It's not about how it usually works, but about what might happen if too few people end up having too much power. They might decide to exploit their position for political purposes. DirkvdM 08:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Market capitalization
Where can I find specific statistics on the total market capitalization (share price x shares outstanding) of all publicly traded stocks in the United States? I'm not looking for one particular exchange, but all public stocks traded in the United States. Annual statistics, such as the market cap on January 1 of every year for the past 20 years. ? I'm looking for something similar to http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/1401_united_states_and_foreign_stock_markets.html, but more up-to-date, and ideally a way to calculate it monthly. Sonic Craze 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I immediately thought of Hoover's, but I only have access to the free pages so I don't know what is in the subscriber-only section. You may be able to find out some of that info from the free pages, though - let me investigate...  Hassocks5489 11:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think you mean for the country as a whole ... in that case, ignore the above. Sorry.  Hassocks5489 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some annual information in the reports in here; check the bottom of Page 8 of each report. Data appears to be annual and in €.  2006 data seems to be in the 2007 reports and so on.  I couldn't see which specific date in the year it applied to.  Hassocks5489 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The last link is quite useful, thank you. However, it only goes back as far as 2003, and I'm hoping to analyze a longer time frame than that (20 years or so).  Any other suggestions?  Sonic Craze 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Financial Times will have records, your local archive/library will also keep records (though perhaps not in database format. The major newspapers of the US that list shares will have them. THe stock-exchanges themselves will hold this information. I know from my attempts to track something similar in the UK (I wanted the FTSE-100 members at inception V today/various points in history) that it is extremely difficult to find information of this nation online. ny156uk 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Further to what ny156uk says, a Google search using various terms has turned up surprisingly little. A reference on page 35 of this essay, comparing the 1990 and 1998 figures, leads to a book by Emmanuel Todd, After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), but I doubt this would have a breakdown of other years as well, unfortunately.  Hassocks5489 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

UT2004 voice actor
What's the name of the female voice actor who does the status messages in UT2004 like Double Kill, Multi Kill up to Ludicrous Kill and HOLY S**T! I don't mean the "sexy quake" voice pack which sounds similar, I mean the announcer that ships with UT2004. What's her name? I'm really curious to see what she looks like after hearing her voice thousands of times.. -- ⁪ffroth 23:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure, but the likelihood is that it's either Shannon Ewing or Lani Minella  WebHamste r  23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I found her. Wait, aaah! -- ⁪ffroth 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Logging In
Does anyone know why people would log into any messenger and not say anything to anyone that is talking to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.3.93 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They might not respond to "strangers" for a variety of reasons. Maybe everyone is a stranger to them.
 * They might be logged in, so a happy yellow face (or whatever indicates "active") appears on their friends' friendslist, showing that they're online. Maybe none of those friends is online for a while, or have nothing to say, and people just stay logged in for hours while they're at or near their computer.
 * They might be waiting for messages from one special person, and nothing else counts. Maybe that person isn't online yet, or maybe he/she will never post a message.
 * ---Sluzzelin talk  00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe they aren't online at all. Maybe they're eating a sandwich in the other room and didn't log out. Maybe they don't want to talk. Maybe they don't want to talk TO YOU. Maybe they are talking to someone else! Maybe they just want to see who else is online. There are an unlimited number of reasons. --24.147.86.187 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In my limited experience, people tend to use the setting that automatically logs them in when the computer starts up. They don't bother logging out when they don't intend to chat or when they are on the phone, answering the door or having lunch/dinner. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is true for me, with cable internet it automatically connects when I log into windows, and stays logged on until I restart/login from somewhere else or another computer in the house. It's just me there(single 25yo guy here), so when I lock down windows(windows key-L) there is no chance of anything else going on. Dureo 09:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm often watching a DVD so would'nt reply.It can't be so urgent that you can't wait for a reply for an hour or two.--hotclaws 10:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe somebody else is using the computer. Sonic Craze 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)