Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 September 11

= September 11 =

toyota tundra model truck 2005 model
where is the connextion at for the computer code reader ? also how does a person turn off the amber "maint required " light ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.235.189 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The connections are usually under the dashboard on most vehicles. And unhooking the ground cable from the battery and then putting it back on after about a minute will generally make the light go off.  Though if there is still a problem with the vehicle, the light will come back on once the sensors see that problem again.  Dismas |(talk) 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, when in doubt, why not take it in for servicing? Particularly if it's under warranty, what have you got to lose? Friday (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be a multi-pin connector called the "OBD-II" port down under the steering wheel - perhaps just in front of the driver-side door under a little flip-up cover marked "OBD-II" usually. You have to connect a computer of some kind to that port and tell the truck to turn off the light using specialised software.  Your best bet is probably to go to a garage with computerized diagnostic gear (which is most of them these days) and ask them to turn off the light - but they'll probably want to actually do an oil change or something - or at least charge you for the privilage.  I believe that some car parts stores will do this for nothing...but there is a lot of variation about what they'll do and what they won't from one store to the next.  If you are a real car/computer nut you might consider buying an OBD-II cable to connect the serial port on a laptop to the OBD-II port on your car/truck - and those come with software to let you do stuff like this.  (You have to use a Laptop running on batteries though - DO NOT USE A DESKSIDE COMPUTER!) Some cars (like my MINI Cooper) have another way to do it - by holding down various switches on the dashboard while turning the ignition off and on again or something.  However, those tricks are different from one car to the next and they are rarely listed in the owner's manual and you'll probably need to find an online "Tundra owners club" or something like that where such things are discussed.  You might get lucky and find the information in a shop-manual, but neither of the two shop manuals for my car tell you that - so it's not certain.  If it's only an '05 truck, maybe you can get free service at Toyota dealerships?  Maybe not...but my car came with 4 years of free service, so they do that stuff for nothing, if yours did too, then take advantage of it! SteveBaker 20:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The standard for OBD-II requires that the connector be within some very short distance of the steering wheel.


 * Atlant 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Chartered Accountant
a person of the education of F.Sc.(pre-engineering) from Pakistan wants to become a Chartered Accountant, either it is a right choice. What are your comments in my opinion.Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.200.225 (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If that's what this person really wants to do I see no reason why they should not. You might wish to read our article on Chartered Accountants.--Shantavira|feed me 08:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As the previous poster says it depends on if its what he or she wants to do. However for some reason people with engineering degrees actually have a better success rate in the Institute of Chartered Accountants In England and Wales (ICAEW) exams than people with accounting degrees!  Kelpin 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (a Chartered Accountant with an Accounting degree!).

Inscription on my glasses
On my glasses there is a small inscription on the right arm that reads "M6420 /45  6057  48៛20  ↓  140" can anyone tell me what it means? --Candy-Panda 06:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably the catalogue number of this particular model of frames. --Richardrj talkemail 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The 48៛20 is a measurement - something to do with the width of the frame, and possibly the bridge (nose) width, the 140" (inches?) looks similar to a arm length measurement in mm, most frames may come in different sizes. The rest is probably the frame reference number ie style/colour83.100.251.220 08:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From (http://www.nuglasses.co.uk/faq.asp) "If you have a pair of glasses that fit you well, you can buy another pair the same size by reading the size on your existing glasses. It is usually shown on the inside of the arm or sometimes on the nose bridge. There are three numbers, the first number is the diameter of the lens from the bottom left corner to the top right hand corner, the second is the width of the bridge across the nose and the third is the length of the arm, all in millimeters."
 * So your glasses should have 48mm width lenses, 20mm 'nose' width, and 140mm arm length, so "M6420 /45  6057" is almost certainly the style description.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.251.220 (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow thank you for that description! --Candy-Panda 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Schwarzmann
Wasn't Alfred Schwarzmann,a German gymnast in 1936 olympics, a Jew(can say by his -mann surname)?How could he become a Fallschirmjager diring the world war II?218.248.2.51 08:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid
 * The name doesn't make him a jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.251.220 (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very many German names end with -mann, Eichmann for example. Skarioffszky 12:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ... or Bormann. Gandalf61 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Our Alfred Schwarzmann article makes it seem very unlikely that he was a Jew. --Sean 13:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the OP is American, you can sort of understand why he would equate a German name with Judaism, since such a disproportionate number of German immigrants in the first half of the 20th century were Jewish. FiggyBee 17:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So at this point I recommend reading maybe ashkenazi to find out why so many jews have 'german sounding names'.87.102.16.32 08:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fascination
I really get fascinated whenever I think about scientific geniuses like Neumann,Feynmann etc...I feel inferior when I compare myself with those brilliant minds.I wonder how can they think so fastly whereas I can't do so?I keep proposing this silly theory that if I will stress on increasing my intellect and I.Q then I will beget an offspring who will be more intelligent and brilliant and this will continue till the limit of human intellect is reached (just as Jews do).I find this idea too silly even to discuss with my friends ,genius is natural, right?Neumann and Feynmann co. didn't force it but Neumann was cool because he was a very brilliant guy at the same time he was a Hedonist and would gaze at female legs.Even I am a silent rouge like him but without the brilliance component.Please help me out of this inferiority complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.2.51 (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Being 'clever' takes work, they didn't pop out of the egg geniuses, work at something and you'll be a genius at that too. That's all there is to it.83.100.251.220 09:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your silly theory is called Lamarckism, btw. Skarioffszky 13:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a rule of thumb (quoted in expert) that it takes ten thousand hours of deliberate practice to become an expert at a skill. That means practice, practice, practice... Therefore if you can find something that really interests you and on which you can motivate yourself to spend every waking hour, then you can become an expert in time. If you spend 8 hours a day for 313 days a year practising, you get your 10000 hours in four years. Motivating yourself, however, is the tricky part. Most people who can find that degree of commitment need to have some intrinsic reward, that is a reward that comes the thing itself. Either they enjoy the practice, or find it very interesting, or they find great satisfaction in mastering something. If your motivation is something outside the thing itself, such as wanting to be famous, or to be brilliant, it will be harder to maintain. Good luck to you! SaundersW 13:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Along those same lines, here's a good essay that could be applied to many different skills: Teach Yourself Computer Programming in Ten Years. --Sean 13:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it helps, I knew a couple of people in my life who I would class as world class brilliant, maybe not Feynmann but serious theoretical contributions to physics or artificial intelligence at a very early age; and as their brilliance in their field grew, their ability to function in the real world declined simultaneously. Gzuckier 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Richard Feynman is truly my hero. If there was anyone in history I would try to emulate - it would certainly be him. His achievements are horribly underrated in my opinion, he was an intellectual giant compared to Einstein for example.  Anyway to the question(s):
 * I really get fascinated whenever I think about scientific geniuses like Neumann,Feynmann etc. -- Indeed. Me too. We have a lot to learn from those guys beyond the science.
 * I feel inferior when I compare myself with those brilliant minds. -- Well, yes, me too. There has to be someone who is best in all the world at doing something - and the odds of it being either you are me are small.  However, it would not be hard to find some aspect of life at which you could do very much better than Neumann or Feynman!  Most of us are generalists - and those guys were (largely) specialists.  Feynman was more well-balanced than most geniuses though...one of the reasons he impresses me. John von Neumann on the other hand was a bit 'out there' in many regards - a smart guy no doubt - but not by any means a normal human being!
 * I wonder how can they think so fastly whereas I can't do so? -- I'm not sure it's a matter of speed. Feynman taught himself all sorts of approximation methods and learned things from the old, dusty corners of mathematics that not many other people bothered with.  This gave the illusion of him being very fast.  He confesses that his lack of ability in mainstream math meant that he sometimes had to attack conventional problems from strange directions that resulted in things taking longer for him than for most.  However, once in a while, he'd come up with dazzling solutions way ahead of the pack - and it's those things that people remembered him for.
 * I keep proposing this silly theory that if I will stress on increasing my intellect and I.Q then I will beget an offspring who will be more intelligent and brilliant and this will continue till the limit of human intellect is reached (just as Jews do). -- That assumes that (a) you can improve your IQ through your life by some means ...and...(b) it assumes that IQ is a genetic trait that can be passed onto your offspring. Now - think about this.  Those two things can't both be 100% true.  If IQ is mostly something you inherit - then your chances of improving your IQ are not so great because you'd be stuck with whatever genes you'd been dealt at birth.  On the other hand, if it's mostly not genetic then improving your IQ won't have any direct effect on your kids because learned behavior isn't passed on through genetics.  I think the jury is still out on which of those two things it is - but either way your plan is doomed!  The only way this can happen is if it's not particularly genetic in nature yet you can pass intelligence on to your kids by educating them well.  So that's what I strive to do.  I've always made a point of reading my kid 'mind stretching' stories at bed time, chatting with him about science and difficult ideas and so on - making learning fun and yet also difficult.  Now, if it's entirely genetic then I might be wasting my time...but I doubt it is.  Anyway, I'm blessed with a son who is doing most of his school work two years ahead of his grade and is on-track to graduate from high school a year ahead of time...so whichever it is, it's working!
 * I find this idea too silly even to discuss with my friends, genius is natural, right? -- I don't think we know for sure. I don't know much about Neumann - but Feynman's father did a lot of smart things when raising his son and he may well have planted the seed that made a nobel prize winner.  However Richards father wasn't a particularly brilliant man.  His sister and his son are/were both scientists (cosmologist and computing) - which would point to genetic causes - but then his adopted daughter is pretty smart too...which says it could be passed on from parent to child by educating them at a young age.  It's hard to know. Our article Genetics of intelligence covers the ground well.
 * Neumann and Feynmann co. didn't force it but Neumann was cool because he was a very brilliant guy at the same time he was a Hedonist and would gaze at female legs. -- Feynman even more so! Read his (many) biographies!  He made a science out of chatting up women...and I mean SCIENCE.  He taught himself (literally) to socialise with people in seedy bars using all of the formal research approaches he used in designing the atom bomb or figuring out how to crack a safe.
 * Even I am a silent rouge like him but without the brilliance component. Please help me out of this inferiority complex. -- Well, it's not the task of an online reference desk to offer physchological advice - and I won't do that. So let's stick to the facts.  Feeling inferior to Feynman at math and science is not "an inferiority complex", it's just plain "inferiority"!  At the things he did well, nearly 100% of people on this planet truly are inferior, so feelings like that are perfectly correct!  However, (as I said before) there are certain to be a whole raft of things that you're better at than those guys.  Feynman had to teach himself through sheer effort of will to be someone who could comfortable socialise with other people...things that most of us find comes fairly naturally.  So go ahead and feel superior in all of those other regards.
 * SteveBaker 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta say, Steve, I find Feynman to be, as a person, an ass, an emotional infant, and often a blowhard — based on his own writings, primarily. Emulate his brains and hard work, though I might advise skipping out on his personal relations. But there's no disputing he's a smart guy. --72.83.173.248 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with that - do you have some specific examples of what you have in mind? SteveBaker 03:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Not the same poster) - his work aside - the "self publicist" part put some people off him, or you could just describe him as "outgoing"...87.102.16.32 08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comparing yourself with the best of anything will make you feel inferior. There isn't anybody on this website who can hold a candle to people like Feynman and Von Neumann, I would reckon', in terms of sheer scientific and mathematical intelligence. There similarly isn't anyone here who can run like Jesse Owens or play hoops like Michael Jordan. But these are the exceptions of humanity. They are interesting to us for specifically that reason.
 * In any case, Von Neumann and Feynman were, from a personality standpoint, total jerks, as far as I can tell. Neither had a reputation for being caring and considerate towards others, neither had a shred of modesty, and neither seem to me to be particularly friendly guys (maybe Feynman a little more than Von Neumann, but not a whole lot). Which is not to take them down a peg, but is just to say: nobody's perfect.
 * So you're not the smartest guy in the world — nobody is, except that one guy who is, but that's only one guy. There are all sorts of other talents you can cultivate. You may never be the fastest runner, the longest jumper, the prize-winning aviator, or the mathematical physicist. But you can, almost certainly, be friendly, companionable, considerate, kind, humble, and beloved by those around you. That's something that a good deal of geniuses never could figure out how to do — often because their very genius gave them a disdain for others, an inflated sense of ego, and set their personal and professional stakes very high. You and I are unburdened by such a spotlight; we can take the time to make sure that the people around us are well-loved and that they love us in return. That's not a Nobel Prize, but it's still pretty good. There are probably some Nobel Prize winners who, in the end, would have thought that was a pretty good deal. --72.83.173.248 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is something odd about feymann - it that he seems to have produced quite a few people who's sole purpose is to "lick his ass", I'd be more impressed with him as a scientist if he had made quantum electrodynamics as well known as he is.87.102.16.32 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (disclaimer) - I don't know if feynmann is responsible for his own idolisation, or it's a media related issue due to him having 'been on TV'87.102.16.32 10:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But that assumes that he thought quantum electrodynamics was actually all that important - I don't think he did. He did go to the trouble of writing "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" - which even the layman can understand - not many physicists ever do that.  His most impressive work by far (IMHO) was "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" - easily the best undergraduate physics books ever written.  He is forgotten for his work in so many other areas.  Most people only remember: Bongo playing, Lock picking, Atom bomb design and (perhaps) Quantum electrodynamics.  But he worked in a huge array of fields - as a college professor he actually taught the best of a generation of physicists rather than doing the odd lecture in between using the time for his own research. SteveBaker 15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and his work on the Rogers Commission. My impression of Feynman is that he was quite self-critical - I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that he thought the "Feynman Lectuers" were a failure, or at least only a limited success, because he felt he hadn't met his objective of producing material which challenged the brightest students but could still be understood by an average student. Gandalf61 15:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the absence of other (living) well known physicists shone the glare of publicity too brightly on feynmann. I already know more than I need to about him.87.102.16.32 16:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's it. Take Stephen Hawkings for example - he's had the glare of publicity - people say he's the most intelligent man alive and he's written at least one book for the layman.  But what do people know of him?  He's the guy in the wheelchair with the computerised voice who does complicated stuff to do with black holes...that's it (not that it's his fault - it's hard to do things that are amazingly memorable to the layman in his condition).  But Feynman had at least a dozen popular biographies and collections of his writings in print before he died - and lots more since.  I think the difference is simply that Feynman did a lot of things that people find fascinating that are comprehensible to the layman.  Who can fail to recall that someone working in the most secret project imaginable (the atom bomb) taught himself to pick combination locks in his spare time?!  The whole "Tuva or Bust" thing has been the subject of a book, a record album and a TV documentary.  His 5 minute presentation at the shuttle disaster enquiry captivated people's minds not because he was clever - but because he was a great teacher - he was able to show (using a 50 cent C-clamp and the glass of iced water that had been set out for the speakers at the enquiry) what went wrong in a way that NOBODY could fail to understand.  He didn't follow the paper trail or investigate managerial techniques at NASA - he went and talked to the engineers and to the technicians who actually built the thing, asked them what really was the problem and brought it to public attention in a way that nobody could ignore.  That kind of stuff (which one could continue to list for pages) was what made him well known.  It wasn't self-promotion.  When he won the Nobel prize, he actually decided not to bother to go to the ceremony to accept it - he had to be pressured to do it.  That's hardly the actions of a fanatical self-publicist. SteveBaker 20:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole thing brings to mind Linus Pauling who despite his notable contributions to chemistry, pretty much became the "vitamin C scientist" due to non-scientific media coverage..87.102.16.32 16:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey chap,don't stress your mind.Help a puppy out there introuble,it will make you more famous than Feynman in the eyes of God.Intellect may be easy to obtain but there are somethings which the brightest of intellect cannot explain and that is LOVE andCOMPASSION.INTELLECT can make wonders but Love can make lovely human beings who can stop the further production of dangerous things which intellect can produce.So stop glorifying intellect because it can never be perfect.218.248.2.51 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid
 * Perhaps Feynman helped out two puppies that were both in trouble - now God loves him more...you gotta consider all the angles. SteveBaker 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't oppose people just for the heck of it,Mr.Baker.Helping puppies doesn't mean we have to keep searching the world for puppies.Life is not a puppy helping competion,right?I am just exhorting you peple to stop glorifying intellect and be more compassionate and caring.It will surely win hearts if not a Nobel prize.Well Mr.Baker go and help a PUPPY and don't care how many you are helping.Counting makes you more selfish.218.248.2.51 10:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid

OIl in California
Does America use it's own oil resources like that in California, Texas, and Arizona? Is there regulations by environmental or others that put a cap and limit the oil that can be brought up in these states, is that why there isn't more drilling or oil sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.126.128.69 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The United States certainly uses oil produced domestically in places like California and Texas. There is no legal limit on the amount of oil that can be produced in any state. Environmental regulations might prohibit putting an oil well in a sensitive place like a beach or in the middle of a public park.  However, modern drilling technology would make it possible to put the well head outside of most smaller environmentally sensitive areas and then drill horizontally to reach an oil deposit underneath that area.  (This would not work, however, for larger protected areas, such as national parks.)  The overwhelming reason why there is not more drilling or oil extraction in the United States is that the United States has already extracted most of its historic oil reserves.  The United States passed its peak of oil production in the early 1970s, and it has produced less and less since then simply because there is less oil left in the ground.  You might want to look at the articles Peak oil and Hubbert peak theory. Marco polo 15:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And to add a bit -- the US IS drilling a lot; we have more than half the existing oil wells in the world, about 510,000 of 900,000 total, and in June 2007 there were 1,771 active rigs (new attempts to find oil) in the US (and 1,307 in the rest of the world with the greatest number in any one country 208, in Canada). As Marco polo says, the problem is the amount of oil in those wells - we are down to an average of about 10 barrels per day per well and declining (from a high in the early 1970s of about 20 barrels per day per well). Saudi Arabia produces at least 1500 barrels per day per well (some estimates go as high as 5000 barrels per day per well, even though that is likely too high). Also the Atlantic coast offshore, most of the Pacific coast (excluding Alaska), and Gulf of Mexico offshore Florida have been off limits by law for environmental reasons for some time. I'm not sure if that extends to the horizontal drilling mentioned by Marco. And, as an aside, the original question mentioned Arizona, but Arizona has trivial oil production and reserves; the state is not in the top 20 of US oil-producing states and probably produces no more than 5,000 or so barrels per day (US total consumption is about 21,000,000 barrels per day). Cheers Geologyguy 15:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Texas and Oil reserves: The known petroleum deposits of Texas are about 8 billion barrels, which makes up approximately one-third of the known U. S. supply. Texas has 4.6 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves. ('known' means you know it's there, 'proven' means that you know you can pump it out) - so out of a world reserve of perhaps ('proven') 1.2 trillion barrels ('known') 4.8 trillion. So Texas accounts for about a half to a tenth of of one percent depending on how optimistic you are.  Our article on California doesn't quote figures - but I imagine it's less - but if Texas' supply is one third of the total for the USA, then with all of the states put together, there is 24 billion (known) and 14 billion (proven).  The world is using oil at a rate of 84 million barrels per day of which the USA consumes about 20 million per day (and produces only 8 million).  So, from this we may deduce that if oil imports ceased tomorrow then all of the USA reserves put together might maybe keep the country running for two years before running dry using 'proven' numbers or close to four years if we could exploit all of the oil shales and other inefficient sources.  However, that's not going to happen because nobody in their right mind would put in all of that investment into enough plant capacity to pump at that rate if it's only going to operate for a couple of years then run dry.  At 14 billion barrels, the US reserves are a drop in the bucket compared to: Abu Dhabi (92 billion), Iran (132 billion), Iraq (115 billion), Kuwait (99 billion), Saudi Arabia (259 billion), Venezuela (78 billion).


 * But these days, we shouldn't be concerned about running out of oil - the problem is what we'll have done to the atmosphere long before we run out. SteveBaker 16:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that consuming the remaining oil will do serious harm to our atmosphere and climate, but I disagree that we need not be concerned about running out of oil. The "proven reserves" that you cite for the OPEC members above are hotly disputed.  As this blog points out, the "proven reserves" of most of those countries jumped dramatically (in the case of the United Arab Emirates—or Abu Dhabi—more than doubled) in a single year in the 1980s.  One would expect proven reserves to rise gradually, year by year, as the result of ongoing exploration.  Instead, the stated reserves of these countries jumped suddenly in a single year.  Coincidentally, the amount of oil that each country was allowed to sell in that period as part of OPEC was keyed to its "proven reserves".  Many commentators have suggested that the jump in reserves was not linked to coincidental new discoveries but instead was a fabrication by the oil ministries of these countries (which typically provide no verifiable documentation for their claims) designed to increase their oil production quotas within OPEC.  If this is true, then real reserves are likely to be much lower than the stated figures.  Marco polo 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree - do the numbers. Running out is most definitely not the problem here...unless the question was really specifically about the US reserves (and I presume those numbers are not fabricated).


 * Suppose this is a US-only question. If the subtext to this question was an Americanocentric: "If we just used the reserves the US had could we get rid of this terrible dependence on foreign oil?" and the answer is flat out "NO!" - not unless the US could halve consumption every year from now until eternity.  If we agree that there are two years worth of reserves at present consumption rates then here is the 'never running out' model:  Year one, consume half of the reserves - but then halve our consumption(!).  Year two, half as much oil left - but with half the consumption rate, that's still 2 years worth...and so on, halving consumption and halving the reserves every year - forever). But there is no imaginable way to do that...this year, replace every single 20mpg car with a 40mpg hybrid...next year...um...we don't have 80mpg cars so halve the number of miles driven(!!)...and the next year...um...no clue.  So the US is stuck with foreign oil dependancy forever - which is clearly problematic when you look at the list of names of countries with substantial oil reserves and the current political situation.


 * But suppose you treat this as a global problem then with (say) 1.2 trillion barrels left in the ground, but with 80 million barrels per day being consumed. We have about a 500 year world-wide supply at present consumption rates.  So to avoid running out, we'd only have to halve consumption every 250 years - which is easily do-able.  However, I doubt any reasonable atmospheric scientist would agree that we could continue to burn oil at the present rate for even 20 years - let alone 250.  Even if those figures are inflated by a factor of 4 (which I doubt because the numbers were higher than that before the OPEC reserves rule came into being).  If we had only 300 billion barrels in the ground, we'd still have ~60 years to halve our oil consumption - which is still vastly too long to save the planet from global warming.  That's why we have to be more concerned about the atmosphere than with running out. SteveBaker 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Steve, I don't disagree with you that we need to be more concerned about ruining the atmosphere than with running out of oil. However, I think that, with our current economic and political structure, sadly, ruining the atmosphere is a given.  An obvious alternative to oil is coal, which is even more harmful to the atmosphere.  While nuclear power would not ruin the atmosphere, it would produce radioactive waste that would endanger the planet for tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of years. But without coal or nuclear power, and with oil depleting, we face a need to dramatically decrease our energy consumption.  (Renewables cannot make up a gap this huge.)  Think of the corporate interests (automotive, energy sector, chemical industry, metals industry, etc.) that would be arrayed against a reduction in energy consumption, which would translate directly into a reduction in their profits.  And think of the drop in the standard of living (as conventionally conceived in terms of mobility, heating, appliances, etc.) that would have to accompany a sharp (and progressive) decrease in energy consumption.  What politician would propose such a thing?  What politician who did would be elected?  Therefore, I fear that we will turn to coal, and the atmosphere will be ruined.  Alternatively, we turn to nuclear power on a massive scale with grave environmental consequences for eons to come.  Either way, we will buy ourselves only a generation or two before uranium or coal run out at current rates of energy consumption, and we will face the need to reduce energy consumption on an even more ecologically devastated planet.  Marco polo 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We're getting WAY off-topic here - but I think there are ways to solve both problems - but we have to take the task seriously - and most of the people in the world are not. We can demand 40mpg+ cars - the technology is absolutely there - we just have to pass a law.  In the USA, that halves the car problem at a stroke within the average lifespan of a car (5 years or so) - we can get to 80mpg within another 5 years if we only demand it to be so.  Similar tricks can probably be applied to other oil-consuming systems.  Meanwhile we can ramp up to make ethanol from plants and be carbon-neutral in liquid fuels within a decade.  We can use nuclear power to get us over the short term problems with electricity generation until we can build high tech fusion reactors or get helium fuel from the moon (for lower-tech fusion), we can stick windmills on every available inch of farmland and out in the shallower parts of the oceans.  Nuclear power is nasty - but we can use technology to contain it.  We don't have technology to deal with CO2.  If we polluted a thousand square miles with radioactive waste, the net effect on the planet as a whole will be negligable.  Let's dump all of our nuclear waste in a big hole next to Chernobyl - so long as it can't wash into the ground-water or blow into the air, it's an acceptable price to pay compared to melting the icecaps.  Wildlife is doing GREAT in the shadow of Chernobyl...humans not so good, but we can live someplace else.  In the longer term we can consider more radical stuff like orbital solar farms with microwave power down-links.  These are all difficult technologies - but not one of them is impossible.  However, none of these will come about as a result natural market forces so long as oil is cheaper and pollution is either free or 'set-aside-able'.  The way we're going, oil has to get very rare indeed before the capital cost of some of these more radical projects becomes acceptable - and as the numbers above show, it's not going to get really rare for a hundred years or more - and that's WAY too late.  Fixing this will require some sacrifices to achieve - but the effects of severe global warming will be VASTLY more onerous and expensive to deal with, 2% of GDP now is a lot better than 10% of GDP in 10 years or 40% of GDB in 20.  What we're lacking isn't technology - it's political support and media backing.  SteveBaker 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But why doesn't the USA simply "liberate" the entire world reserves of oil, wherever it may be - beneath Alaska, Russia, the Oceans, Saudi Arabia et al, and thus reduce/remove its potential use by all the non-USA Tyrannical Governments/Dictatorships as a Weapon of Mass (USA) Reduction, and then use it for the preservation of democratic civilisation (USA style) and the persistence of The Land of the Free and the Pursuit of Happiness? Simple if you ask me. And I feel sure President Bush would agree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.69 (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

American Bald Eagle
I need to know all about the Bald Eagle in all stages of its development —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.72.180 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Bald_eagle might be a good place to start? SaundersW 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

National Oil Companies / State Control of energy sector
Which countries have energy (oil/gas) sectors that are government-owned/controlled? 198.45.26.25 16:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Saudi Arabia, Mexico, China, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, among others. Many more have primary companies that are partially to significantly owned by the governments - e.g. Petrobras (Brazil). Cheers Geologyguy 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not always that clearcut. Gas in the Netherlands is handled by the Gasunie, which was in a partial privatisation-move in 2005 split into two companies. The transport company is fully state owned and the trade company half state owned (the other half being shared by Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil). Electricity in the Netherlands was also privatised recently, but since its nature makes it desirable that it is a monopoly, there is no real free market and the state sets the price. I suppose one could say that it is state controlled, but the state has farmed out (is that the right word?) the actual work. DirkvdM 17:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and nuclear power plants are often state owned (even in the US, I believe) because the cost of building just one is in the order of billions of euros, so that is before any revenues. It takes about ten years to build and then has to run for several years more until the cost is covered and revenues finally start coming in. Way too risky for by far most private companies. The Dutch State Mines (DSM (company) - now a private chemical company) started that way too - 15 years after coal was found in the south, no companies had yet dared to start investing in actually building mines, even though many concessions had been sold. So the state bought up all the concessions and started the operation, until the mines closed in the early seventies. DirkvdM 18:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not disagreeing with anything else you say, but in the US most or all nuclear power plants are owned by utilities and/or integrated energy companies. Cheers Geologyguy 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant was, in its later years, owned by public Long Island Power Authority. -- Mwalcoff 03:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't the Russian oil companies government-owned? Corvus cornix 03:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the Russian companies are, some are not, some are partly... Lukoil, the largest, is officially a private company; it trades on the London Stock Exchange. I am not sure if they still do, but a few years ago Conoco owned a 15% stake in Lukoil - ownership was available as with any non-state-owned company. Lukoil markets in the US and in 2003 bought 1300 Getty gas stations. Cheers Geologyguy 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

best way to sexually pleasure a woman
i want to drive my babe crazy sexually —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.179.153 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very laudable ambition, but what is your question? SaundersW 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Introduce her to Brad Pitt? But seriously, every woman is different. Why don't you ask her what she likes? Clarityfiend 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Coming from a married man, trust me, you need to really get tuned in with what she wants - we men are pretty easy, but you need to talk to your woman and figure out what really gets her going, when the best time to get her going is, how to get her going and where to get her going. When you put forth the effort to do this, she'll reciprocate BIG TIME!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.128.71 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The technique described here will have many women moaning with pleasure before the sex even starts (safe for viewing at work) . Edison 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Best answer ever. --Masamage ♫ 20:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cunnilingus is supposedly ridiculously pleasurable. 71.220.211.235 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Paranormal and Weapons Use
Been reading certain articles here and on the 'net. Why can't it be stated that some people WILL shoot at UFOs, Bigfoot, La Chupacabra, aliens, other monsters ? I KNOW people who HAS shot at these things. YOU see a UFO, Bigfoot, a alien, some monster, will YOU shoot at it ? Troll, ETC., ? No fucking way. After all Wikipedia is NOT censored. 205.240.146.131 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to any specific article at Wikipedia? The Ape Canyon page mentions a story about some miners who allegedly shot a Sasquatch. Zagalejo ^ 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * UFO, Bigfoot, etc. has articles on the 'net reporting people shooting at things of this nature. 205.240.146.131 23:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read one about a family in TN who shot at a bunch of aliens, only to be called hillbillies, drunks, religious nuts. 205.240.146.131 23:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're talking about the Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter, which took place in Kentucky. Do you have a specific question? Zagalejo ^ 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why are these accounts censored ? 205.240.146.131 01:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Google anything paranormal and Weapons Use, people shooting at UFOs, aliens, Bigfoot and you'll see the reports of people shooting at these things. 205.240.146.131 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Censored by whom? I've given you two Wikipedia articles which mention such events. If similar information is removed from other pages, it's probably because the information was not adequately sourced. We can't include every report than someone has added to a website somewhere. (That's not to say that the Ape Canyon and Kelly-Hopkinsville encounter articles are perfectly sourced at the moment, but the incidents are discussed in plenty of books and tv documentaries, so someone could easily improve the articles if they wanted to.) Zagalejo ^ 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You posted this link on my talkpage and told me to respond here. Unfortunately, I'm unable to read the entire article. (Whenever I click on it, I get a 404 error.) I do see that the source they give is John Keel, who's not very reliable, IMO. If you want to include that story in a Wikipedia article, you should look for the newspaper reports. Zagalejo ^ 04:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Wikipedia's sources policy. If you can find a site that meets muster as a "reliable source" that talks about this sort of thing, then we'll happily talk about it endlessly as a fact. --72.83.173.248 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

southern and northern hemisphere star constilations
Are the star consilations the in the southern hemisphere the same as the northern hemisphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.207.105 (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The ones that you can see from the southern hemisphere are the same. However, the farther south you go, the less northern constellations are visible, and in addition you will be able to see constellations that are invisible from the northern hemisphere.  For example, no one in the U.S. can see the Southern Cross, just as no one in Australia can see the Little Dipper.  Antandrus  (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As Antandrus notes, the constellations do not change, but your ability to see them does. The article Celestial sphere may assist with the point I think your question was driving at. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The other thing that comes as quite a surprise is that the heavens seem to turn in the other direction: that is that the sun and the stars seem to go anticlockwise rather than clockwise as they do in the northern hemisphere. SaundersW 07:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had difficulty identifying stars from Sydney, until I realized that Orion was upside down.--Shantavira|feed me 08:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop not importing clipboard
I run Adobe Photoshop CS on my Windows XP and sometimes when I copy and image on the internet to my clipboard and go back into Photoshop, Photoshop doesnt import the clipboard. So then, to open the picture, I must click "Save as.." then open the file in Photoshop. Does anyone know why Photoshop sometimes doesn't import the clipboard? Thanks. Acceptable 23:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I knew the answer, but I've run into the same problem with different versions of Photoshop on both Macs and PCs for a long time. I've never had the issue with other programs, only Photoshop, and I've been conscious of it for a few years now, on totally different machines. --72.83.173.248 04:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I know what you are talking about. Now I'm not sure if this is correct, but as best I've been able to discern, this happens when Photoshop 'thinks' that what you are importing is in an incompatible format - maybe a file that it doesn't recognise as a valid image, or something with the wrong extension. If you are able to get it saved to a drive in a valid image format, of course it will then recognise it and open it no worries. That has always been my basic interpretation of it. --jjron 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this will work if you're using a PC, but I use a mac, and instead of copy-pasting, you can just click and drag whatever image you're trying to open onto the Photoshop icon, and it will open it in a new window. So far, that's worked every time for me.

142.161.53.190 04:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)