Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 April 18

= April 18 =

Milk Delivery
Why is milk delivered when it is, in the middle of the night ? In the UK. x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.181.79 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a guess... It's colder at night, so the milk is less likely to spoil on your doorstep.  If it were delivered during the day, there's not really any knowing when the customer would get home and bring the milk in.  Plus, many people have cereal with milk and/or coffee/tea with milk in the morning, so they will need it then if they've run out.  Drink isn't a popular night time drink, so there's less of a need for fresh milk at night.  Dismas |(talk) 01:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has to be that night is cooler and the customer can get it quickly in the morning. But if you are me and think highly of yourself...they know I like the milk at night.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * It depends on the milkman who delivers it, really, but in my experience it's usually between 2 and 5 am. I used to steal people's milk all the time, as it's just left on their doorstep. Depending on how densely populated the area you live in is, it probably gets delivered between 1 and 3 times a week, and it's always late at night/very early in the morning. You can probably contact your local milkman and ask. As Dismas said, it has to be there when all but the earliest riser awakens, so it'll be early. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stealing someone's milk is a pretty scummy thing to do IMHO. Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah I totally agree. But my neighbours were absolute (insert term of abuse here)s. I didn't do it weekly, just if was up when the milkman came I'd run and take their milk. More like a prank than theft, really. Althugh it was theft, obviously.--Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can use find me a milkman to find out how to get in touch with your local one. Mine appears to have some very reasonable prices. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So is that how it is Micheal. Well now I know where my milk goes now and then. Milk stealer. Do you have a costume and everything?

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
 * And I thought that Maggie Thatcher was the only milk snatcher... Warofdreams talk 17:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Like most deliveries is is so they are not clogging up the roads during peak traffic times.


 * There's probably historical reasons too. In the days before mass refrigeration (and modern treatments to prolong life of the milk) you'd usually want to get fresh milk every day, as it does go off. Most people want it first thing in the morning to have with their cereal, tea, coffee, whatever. In those days, possibly even moreso than now, a significant number of workers left home very early. Thus the reason for the extremely early delivery. --jjron (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, cows are milked first thing in the morning(and get upset when the clock changes too).The milk was delivered to towns as quickly as possible to keep fresh.Once you got it, then the dairy was free of any responsibility of keeping it fresh pre refridgeration as mentioned above, so quick, early delivery was best.hotclaws 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)..

Best thing
What's the best thing ever ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.181.79 (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See bestthing.info. Hope this helps. -- BenRG (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that site may just be the best thing ever. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of whichisworse.com. Useight (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Chicken soup after sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacock lover (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Life? Death?--79.71.223.137 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorbet, oh yum.Cardinal Raven (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
 * Being myself; the best and most amazing person I know.

Ben Grimm in the Fantastic Four. hotclaws 19:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia. Naturally. Or Wikipedia editing while listening to Beethoven. -- La Pianísta!  03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sentient Puddle
Could somone provide me with a quote from Douglas Adams which encapsulates his idea of the sentient puddle? Or provide a link to a website with his quote? I don't have any of his books and I'm pressed for time, so please don't answer "just read the book". Thnx BeefJeaunt (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd have checked WikiQuote, you would have saved some time waiting for a response... http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams  Dismas |(talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase
Upon looking at a map of the Louisiana Purchase, it appears that the extreme northern end is now in southern Canada. Did the U.S. Get any compensation for land lost when the border was established? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.4.210 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The 49th parallel was set by the Treaty of 1818. According to 49th parallel north "Both sides gained and lost some territory by this convention, but the United States gained more than it lost, in particular securing title to the Red River Basin." There's a map showing the areas gained and lost on the Louisiana Purchase page. Pfly (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The Unknown
I've been thinking for a long time. We fear the unknown a lot of the time. One of the most well known historically fears of the unknown were other races. We feared them because they were the unknown to us. Why is the unknown feared? Is there a cure for fearing the unknown? And if there is a cure then would the cure be to face all the unknowns you possibly could? What makes the unknown so scary? Why are we so afraid of the unknown?

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * Wikipedians and wikipedia seem hell-bent on pushing back the bounds of the Unknown. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We react badly to the unknown simply because we do not know anything about and therefore we often assume the worst. It's a survival instinct in us: paranoia. If we do not know something, then our safest option is to react as if the worst possible reality is true. If you have a persistently bad stomach ache and then go see the doctor and he doesn't tell you what's wrong but asks you to come back for another appointment, many people will start to fear the worst. Perhaps they have cancer. This will stress them out, but may also help prepare them for facing the fact they have cancer (even though they don't). The cure for fearing the unknown is simple: knowledge. Obviously that does nothing to the actual idea of the "unknown" itself, but if you know everything then you can't fear the unknown. A good way to think about it is one of those situations where you think people are talking about you simply becuase you don't know what they're saying. I like to think that this is just instinct watching out for us, because if we didn't do this we would fall victim to the simplest deceptions. Another way of looking at it would be to say the unknown scares us because historically the unknown is scary. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bad case of ego-transference. Just because one country wants to attack another, does not mean that the second country would do the same to the first if it had the capability.  In many ways it makes good sense to defend one's country against potential invaders, but that very build-up of arms for strictly defensive purposes is often misinterpreted by other countries as offensive in purpose, and so we have this eternal argy-bargy about who's threatening who.  We spend enormous amounts on our respective national defences, for those just-in-case occasions, when the actual threats are a very small proportion of the hypothetical threats.  We could spend all that lovely moolah in more productive ways, but laying down the arms is inviting trouble from the small number of real threats, so it's seen as a bad idea.  And no country is ever going to be the first to do it.  We have the same attitude to aliens.  It's assumed that any extraterrestrial civilisation that's capable of coming here will automatically want to conquer, colonise or destroy us.  If they were really that advanced, I think it's very likely such intentions would be the last things on their minds (assuming they have "minds" as we understand that term).  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I don't think that an aggressive action based on fear is going to be the right option even two times out of ten. But I do think that man behaves in a way similar to a Hobbesian state of nature, and without the information to decide whether the particular theoretical unknown is a threat is likely to treat it as one. A race to the bottom will inevitably occur without some kind of compromise, but even then do we really know who to trust? Trust is a huge part of this issue, I think. Society knits us together to prevent a state of nature, and as such familiarises us with the unknown as we learn more about the wide world. Thus rather than "that family over there" the threat becomes "that tribe over the mountain" then "that nation over the sea" then "those damn negroes!". Eventually all the unknowns become a part of our world, but until then it is the natural reaction to be paranoid and afraid. Not founded on any experience, but founded on the genetic memory of generations of humans having to fight for their lives. It's not rational to fear the unknown these days, but we might not have made it to these days without that irrational fear. I've never understood it, myself. I'd think curiosity would come before paranoia and aggression, but then I wouldn't have lasted a second in the Stone Age. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this discussion applicable to the Ultimate Unknown as well? I think this is one of those things that will never be familiar to us-- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And while we're on the topic, let us not forget all the different flavours of unknown. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How would some overcome the fear of death? That is an unknown so different from we experience day by day. A world were don't know if we will exist or not. A world that we don't know if it exists or not.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * Acceptance probably helps. It might be worth having a look here. I would say that death may not be all that big a deal if you know you have lived well. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can easily imagine how the fear of the unknown may have evolved. Curiosity is a dangerous thing on the wild. Creatures that were afraid of something they did not know would have survived better, especially if these creatures were the tiny, fragile mammals we evolved from. I guess the ability stuck, and here we are. Of course, the instinct doesn't work so nice in our new way of life. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with that one. The big ones that got away and become legends in local lakes don't take the bait. Wildlife people sending animals back to the wild want them not to trust humans. Was thinking that the fear of annihilation (not always literal death, but social, racial etc) seems to be at the root of it, being fearful that too many newcomers would obliterate the incumbents can apply to many situations, sometimes founded, sometimes not. It's a big topic. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. The Unknown is a fascinating topic. There are so many theories or ideas about the Unknown. There are so many fears of the unknown its just fascinating. The Unknown is a wonderful thing to face and realize.Cardinal Raven (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * Hi. This is rather similar to our fear of the dark, because what is in the dark cannot be seen and thus is unknown. This is why people want to install pollutous street lighting that bathes the sky in an orange, yellow, pink, blue, white, or red glow, so that our fear of the "unknown" is releived. People think it prevents crime, but perhaps it actually only makes us feel safer, as there is less unknown. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You reminded me, that though I'd rather remain unknown, I am frequently tempted to sling shot the pollutous orange street light just outside my bedroom window. Gah. It's the fear of being known for it that keeps me from doing anything to it as yet. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A cure for fearing the unknown. Good artificial control of your hormones such as cortisol might well remove the fear, or even prevent the learning of strong fear in the first place. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Health care in the US
How good/bad is it? All I ever really hear about is the negative side: people can't afford medicine/treatment, Sicko, people having to take insurance as part of their job contract (and so it not covering everything) etc etc. But I'm aware that the US has strong health policies in Medicare and Medicaid and spends more than the UK does per person. What sort of numbers of Americans can't afford full health care but don't qualify for aid? How expensive are various treatments in America compared to their NHS-subsidised cost in the UK? Comparing the tax burden, do Americans pay more or less than Britons for health care? Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * According to healthcare in the United States, 16% of Americans have no health coverage at all. Most treatment is free under the NHS; are you thinking of spectacles or dentistry or something with your second question? The US government spends about $2700 per person per year on health, while the UK government spends about $2500, so Americans definitely pay more. Algebraist 09:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the figures you just gave are right then Americans pay much more for healthcare, since most American healthcare spending is non-government. You will also notice that if you buy travel insurance (from the UK for example) it comes in three levels: Europe (cheap), World excluding the US (more expensive), World including US (most expensive). The US is the most expensive place in the world to get healthcare. Of course if you can afford it it's really good quality. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say US health care is very good. It's excellent if you want "cutting edge" treatments, where they have the best doctors, best equipment, etc.  However, for "run of the mill" procedures you're likley to get second rate doctors and nurses, and you should consider yourself lucky if they even wash their hands between patients.  For example, just yesterday my Dad went in for hemodialysis, they found he had a very low hemoglobin level, and admitted him to the hospital.  However, instead of giving him blood, which would have actually made sense, they took large quantities of blood for various tests.  Only today did they get around to actually giving him blood. StuRat (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, unquestionably we poor merkins have the worst and most expensive health care "system" in the world. Only a naturally rich country could afford such a crazy quilt "system" that compared to any other wastes titanic sums on paperwork, insurance bureaucracy, drug companies corrupting science (cf Marcia Angell's writings), and general enrichment of fat cats, that the rest of the world finds unnecessary. Just spent the last year or so sleeping in hospitals trying to keep my dad, who has the best insurance imaginable and wads of dough, alive.  The worst was one that had signs all over of being called the best hospital in the USA according to some national ranking. At one point as I came in a cab from the airport I was mistaken (by a very pretty doctor sent to meet him) for a Nobel prize winner who was giving a lecture.  Would have played along in a different mood.  A statistic that should give one pause is that the top third of white Americans by income (virtually all insured, and much wealthier) has worse health than the bottom third of white people in England.  (Interview  with Ichiro Kawachi, Harvard School of Public Health, citing a recent study, Dollars and Sense magazine Jan/Feb 2008, No. 274).John Z (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have experience with both the U.S. and Canadian systems, and some experience with another country's system, so I can shine a little light on this. Most Americans receive pretty good health care. They can all get family doctors with no problem. If they want to see a specialist, they can have an appointment quickly. The doctors are as good as any, and the facilities are beyond reproach (except for Veterans Administration hospitals). The urgent care centers I've been to in Canada look Third World compared to those in the U.S., both because of their spartan atmosphere and their crowding. American health facilities seem luxurious by comparison. And of course, there are plenty of MRI machines and similar technology available. American healthcare is generally paid for, minus a deductable, by the patient's insurance plan, so the out-of-pocket cost is not a major problem for most people.

Now, the downside: Many Americans are either uninsured, underinsured or have trouble paying their premiums and deductables. Even if you have health insurance from work, you may be paying $300 a month in premiums (in addition to what your employer pays) and have a deductible of hundreds of dollars for hospital expenses. Prescriptions may cost $150 even even after insurance pays its part. Needless to say, this financial burden is hard on many people. And that's not mentioning the millions who don't have any health insurance, whether because they're between jobs or stuck in a low-end job with few benefits.

So here's the answer to your question: For most Americans, they're better off, health wise, than people in Canada (don't know about the UK). However, a large and increasing portion of the American public is worse off because of high out-of-pocket costs that they may not be able afford. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to differ that most Americans are better off healthwise than Canadians. The most important single statistic concerning health is life expectancy. Canada's is higher see List of countries by life expectancy.  Americans pay through the nose to achieve a remarkably low level of health, even for the wealthy.John Z (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well until you've experienced both systems, you don't really know. My guess is the difference in life expectancy reflects the high number of young Americans who die in violent crime and the impact of obesity and other lifestyle factors on the U.S. I can tell you for sure that middle-class Americans can easily find a family doctor, see a specialist, get an MRI and get seen in an emergency room within an hour (for an urgent but non-life-threatening matter) -- none of which can be said about Canada. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, we have to differ, especially about the stunning to me idea that one can easily get seen within an hour in a US ER.  Sure once in a while, but I can't help but say that you've had incredibly good luck - hope it continues - in the US if you think that.   I recall waiting for 12+ hours with pneumonia (misdiagnosed and sent home besides) among other experiences (this was in a 100% middle class area with the best insurance I've ever had.))  I'll end quoting  Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine "If we had set out to design the worst system that we could imagine, we couldn't have imagined one as bad as we have."John Z (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Having been gone from the U.S. for a few years, I didn't realize how bad things have gotten in US emergency rooms. Indeed, this story says it all: "Canada's ER problems starting to plague US". -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

When you get right down to it... it all comes down to money and your job. If you work for the government (which few do) your health insurance is the best in the country. Period. No co-pays, no deductables... and your premiums are low. I was on it for the first 22 years of my life. My boyfriend, by comparison, had run of the mill insurance. He had to pay $15 to see a family doctor (each time) in order to get a referral to see a specialist, as well as $25 for a specialist, $150 for the ER, $25 for urgent care (there is a difference) and since he had Asthma, $10 for the albuterol and $40 for the Advair. So, if you're keeping tabs at home, that would be about $265 just for one bad week. We were college students. The last job I had had us paying a $100 deductable per year, plus 20% of anything else. I happened to go to the hospital for some seriously bad food poisoning and ended up saddled with a $1,700 bill. I didnt have a good enough job to get decent insurance, and you think I can afford a bill like that? I'm still paying it and the incident happened a year ago. Now we're on some "decent" insurance, only $50 for the ER, but the prescriptions are insane. So, as I said... it all comes down to your job and what kinda money you make.  Queerbubbles |  Leave me Some Love  15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What else doesn't have to be tied down?
From the milk question above, is milk the last thing in urban living that is not expected to be tied down, locked away, hidden, guarded, CCTV'd and such? It's a nice touch, that milk can stand undefended waiting for its owner. Even if it sometimes goes missing, there's an unspoken pact not to touch another person's innocent milk. Is there anything else? Julia Rossi (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I drink about 3 gallons of milk a week, so I'm pro-milk. Useight (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are newspapers delivered in the UK? We don't have milk delivery, but newspapers are delivered around the same time of the morning that milk is for you, and no one ever steals those, even if they are just sitting there on the porch. I don't think anyone ever steals mail either, that's usually just out in the open too. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Newspapers are delivered in the UK and are left outside the front door if they can't be put through the letter box. I used to do a Sunday paper-round when the papers have about 10 sections so I left most on the doorstep. I don't remeber hearing about anyone having them stolen, although I guess it happens from time to time. Franmars (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I forgot but the post delivers packages to me by leaving them at my door if they won't fit in the lockless letter box. I didn't realise how many things don't need surveillance. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't do that, they should take it back to the post office and put one of those little cards through the letterbox telling you to come and collect it. The only reason they do that is because they can't be arsed lugging it around for the rest of their round.  YMMV but personally I would rather have the hassle of going to the post office than risk my packages being stolen.  But it rarely comes up nowadays because I always get packages delivered to my work address. --Richardrj talkemail 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Garden gnomes, other people's post (when its not gone in the mail box) solar garden lights, birdbaths, cat food bowls, shoes left out over night, dogs, plants, flagpoles, novelty football posters, christmas lights and decorations, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacock lover (talk • contribs) 09:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you leave a large blue ceramic decorative ball in the front garden in the Highlands, it will get stolen, mine was.--79.71.223.137 (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, your clothes and laundry accoutrements from a common laundry room - although my detergent and fabric softener were stolen once. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I lived in student accommodation, laundry was always disappearing from the laundry room. We used to have to sit with the stuff all the time it was washing.  Not a problem once I started using an attended laundrette. Warofdreams talk 17:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Garden gnomes, huh? Haven't you ever heard of the Travelling gnome prank or the Garden Gnome Liberation Front? --jjron (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My garden gnomes have walked away. I have not seen them ever again. They hadn't returned to the master who bought them. Gnomes, milk, newspapers, and mail. These are the things that may go astray at least in my experience yes. I'm blaming the deliveryman about the mail. I have my letter box so no one else can steal my mail unless its the mailman. I need security cameras.Cardinal Raven (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * Yeah you'd be suprised what people will steal. I used to take my nieghbours milk because I'm rather a night owl and I really didn't like my neighbours. But I've heard of people stealing decorative garden ornaments, and there were stories in the papers a while ago about people stealing gnomes, dogs, fish from ponds and even plants. Milk is pretty cheap so I guess it isn't worth stealing, and the same can be said about newspapers. When my parents get wine delivered it's often left outside the door in the porch, clearly visible from the street, yet they've never been robbed for twenty bottles of red. It's a weird one. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time visualizing a gang of hardened thieves in their hang-out swilling down their stolen milk...perhaps if they've just stolen chocolate chip cookies ? StuRat (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But seriously, most thieves will steal things they can sell, and milk, being only good for a short period and obviously stolen if somebody tries to sell it on the street corner, won't attract many buyers. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see it now: CRIME WAVE - ALL MILK STOLEN!!
 * Haha. Thanks all. Maybe a 12-year old like the one in the paper today ("committing crimes for years"). Once had a drunkish mailman who posted stuff willy-nilly. In wealthy suburbs here there has been shrub-envy so that status shrubs go missing and turn up in a neighbour's garden. It's nice to know at some level it's not big-time, though there's no telling with garden gnomes. Sorry for the loss of your blue ball, iimagine someone long after they've forgotten where they got it from, turning up to sell it back to you! : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering about my lawn gnomes. They were such handsome lawn gnomes too. Since I made them by hand. I painted them with careful colors. Actually I had recently bought a fake owl to scare away tiny birds from eating at my house. Someone stole that too. That would be pretty funny Julia. ''You go to your neighbors yard sale. Well aren't these some nice looking lawn gnomes, they look like the ones that were stolen from me years ago.'' ''Um...we can give you a discount.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
 * Like their five-finger discount, har. I'd be looking at a fake burglar alarm with a flashing light, right next to your next bird-scaring owl. There's a short story in the these last few lines at least. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You want me to buy a bird scarring owl and a burglar scarring alarm. That's a wonderful idea. There is a lot of theft in my neighborhood.71.142.208.226 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * I regularly have packages dropped off at my back door. That's the way things are done in the country.  In the city the postal carrier may leave one of those little cards but not in the country or even possibly in the suburbs.  Dismas |(talk) 04:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the birds, but the burglars would certainly have legal recourse if you scarred them. —Sorry, I couldn't resist. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant scare. Scare with the burglar alarm.71.142.208.226 (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Next door's cat comes in our catflap and nicks food.hotclaws 19:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, a true cat burglar at work. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My grandfather used to steal stuff like that, mostly newspapers and milk. I think he had done it since he was a small child and it was just what he did rather than for any particular reason. But people will steal anything. His wife's gravestone was stolen a few years ago. Not the whole thing, just a little statue thing on top, that they broke off.HS7 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously never worked in an office where people have to padlock their milk cartons. Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum
what does it mean? I've seen it many places. including User:Example/Lipsum and it's the default text in Pages for new documents Σαι  ( Talk ) 06:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't mean anything in particular. Lorem ipsum is something made to look like Latin to test how a space (and font, size, etc.) looks without having to have any specific text. It's very useful for graphic designers. Steewi (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Designers (including web designers) refer to a text appearing in this format as "greeked". (As in "it's all Greek to me", presumably.) It can be a transitive verb.  BrainyBabe (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Paper cutter as a weapon
Okay the paper cutter cuts paper and paper cuts flesh. Therefore paper cutter cuts flesh. Is the paper cutter a good weapon making the humble paperboy into an office samurai? Just wondering, I think I remembered an action film where the protagonist killed one of the bad guys by hacking his head with the paper cutter.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lenticel, you've just put a new spin on an old game taking it to Samurai level. An effective weapon, yes. Psycho paper boy... is this for your book? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good screenplay or short story. Perhaps Cardinal Raven can put a spin on it :). Actually I just thought about it as I was tasked to cut paper stacks here in the office...-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fit for a collaboration.. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The ol' transitive property of weapons. I see the transitive property used in sports all the time, but never in weaponry.--droptone (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe anything can be a weapon with the right amount of a imagination. Want me to put a twist to it here you go then:

''The newspapers were coming in today during the brisk morning sunrise. The newspaper with their many articles. The articles were all really bad cliche of the day. Marketing crashed once again it was something unavoidable, child kidnapping people should really not misplace their children, and what is this a mockery to society paper cutter samurai. A man was found in his large house dead. His flesh sliced like fine paper in the office, a tag on the wall that read in bloody words Paper cutter samurai. Why were pictures like these in a newspaper? We really didn't know maybe the paper cutter samurai was leaving us a message, border your doors, lock your homes, keep your children safe, survive with all your wits and smarts, and of course be careful for I am insane I will slice you like the paper I slice at the office.''

What do you think? Do you like it Larry?

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * errr, what? who? me?  There's a whole lot of understandable English words there.  Not too many understandable English sentences though.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Its just a rough draft. But I am willing to create a paper cutter samurai for you so that way you can carry on your weird imaginative thoughts.

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Avril's elbow
WTF is up with Avril Lavigne's elbow? I've seen it thousands of times on her music videos and live performances, usually her left elbow. Couldn't find anything about it online after an extensive search, only this pic of her looking as lovely as usual. Notice her left elbow towards the right of the picture. Its bending backwards. It is much more prominent on Avril's Seoul concert after the skater bio song ends and she raises her arm up to do a bull sign. Please tell me what this is. Double jointed or just fucked up?


 * I've uploaded an image (don't worry, not to wikipedia!) for you to have a look at. This is what I mean  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.149.174 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the page on hypermobility? The photograph shows the elbow joint hyperextended (at an angle greater than 180°), but not by much. You might consult a fan site to enquire further, i.e. whether she has other affected joints, some chromosomal aberration, career potential as a contortionist, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My left elbow does that, but not the right, oddly enough. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My little sister does that not only with her elbows, but also her knees and fingers, plus she can rotate her ankles so her feet point straight out sideways (or even farther back, usually) and when she pops all her joints out at once like that it is something fearsome to behold. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its pretty normal, considering some of the weird things the human body can do...
 * I can bend both of my elbows like that. I have been told that I am double jointed, and it is rare, although I know someone else who can also do it.

coin
I have a dubble headed king george v british coin 1 penny value is it worth anthing or is it rare? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugar slime and ants (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's double-headed - it's a fake - probably a fusion of two pennies that have been carefully split and joined together as used in sleight of hand party tricks. Novel methinks, but valueless.
 * I've seen one of these and I can tell you its not a fake. Probably a fuck up at the mint, where the coins are made. Might be worth something as they usually detect things like that. How old did you say it was, King George thats like 1930s is it?


 * Hi. Some of these actually can be worth a lot. Errors are rare, which is why they're valued by collectors. There's websites like US mint and prices and values for Canadian coins. According to the US mint website, errors are rare and can often be of value, and the Canadian website suggests that if it's in good condition, it can be worth even more. Which country were you in when you found this coin? Really old coins, like those from the 1930s and back, can also be worth a lot more than its face value if they are in good condition. Very new coins, especially "perfect" ones, can also be worth tens or hundreds of times their face value. Errors can also be worth tens to hundreds, and in rare cases, thousands of times their face value. I don't have time to find the relavent websites right now, but it may be worth searching for as a lot of errors are documented by numastics websites. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said - it's a fake. Sell it on eBay for $2.50 alongside the ones already there.

Use it for winning coin tosses.hotclaws 12:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I heard they used to stick two coins together like that to smuggle drugs inside them, but I'm not sure whether the person that told me that got it from a reliable source.


 * You'll need to find out whether it is a real mistake, or just two stuck together to find out its real value, there's no way people here can tell without even seeing it. HS7 (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * yes check it. see if it has a line around the edge wheere they wood have been stuck together. it should be pretty easy to see, unless they sanded it and smoothed it off.


 * I have one of them too. Actually, it's a half penny, but it's similar. It doesn't have a line around the edge, but it's thinner on the edge than a normal half penny, and looks like it's slightly thicker in the middle. Is there any easy way of telling if it's real, without taking it to an expert?HS7 (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Weird flight prices: return cheaper than single?
Flight prices are very weird. A single flight from Vienna to Helsinki on July 21, by Finnair (flight AY 768), leaving Vienna at 18:55 CET and arriving in Helsinki at 22:15 EET, costs 544.62 €. However, a return flight leaving on the exact same flight and coming back to Vienna a week later, on another Finnair flight, costs 290.20 €. So it's actually cheaper for two flights than for one. And even though the flight I would end up actually using is the exact same. The same plane, the same carrier, even the same travel agency. They are giving me a return flight for negative 254.42 €. Why the heck is this? Is it simply a matter of supply and demand? And do I have to actually use the return flight, or can I just tell the carrier "sod it, I'm not going on your flight, I'm staying home in Helsinki, and you can keep the money"? J I P | Talk 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My wife was told by a helpful American Airways phone sales rep that they were not allowed to sell return tickets for single trips. She added "however, if you hang up and call again and ask for a return ticket nobody would be the wiser". -- Q Chris (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To the last, you can absolutely buy the return and never use the return leg. As for pricing in general... it's nutty.  I won't even begin to try to get into where considerations like supply and demand, intentional overbooking, minimum traffic requirements for contracts, and all that sort of stuff comes into play.  Somewhere I guess it matters (though I've yet to see good evidence), but I'm content to just pitch reason out the window when it's time to book a flight. &mdash; Lomn 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nuttiest thing? Someone I know wanted to fly from London to Toronto. There was a cheap offer on flights from Glasgow to Toronto, which stopped at London, but they wouldn't let her book it. And they told her that if she didn't fly the Glasgow-London leg she wouldn't be allowed on the London-Toronto leg. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fly from London to Toronto? You can drive there in an hour or two :-) --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the context this obviously means London, England to Toronto, Canada. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the replies. Do I have to call Finnair in advance or is it enough just to never show up? It's a pity flight tickets aren't transferable, or else I could give someone a flight ticket from Helsinki to Vienna as a free gift. Actually, I looked for flight options from Salzburg to Helsinki as well. The most expensive one, from United Airlines, flies from Salzburg to Frankfurt am Main, then to Munich, and then to Helsinki. The thing is, Frankfurt am Main is in the same direction as Munich, and about four times as far away. So they first fly over Munich, turn around and fly back to Munich, and then fly to Helsinki. The plane flies six times the distance between Salzburg and Munich completely in vain. It's even weirder than flying from Rovaniemi to Tromsø, which goes through Helsinki and Oslo first, because this time they fly the exact same path twice. J I P  | Talk 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Day returns on cross-English Channel ferries are often cheaper than single trips. When booking, you are warned that if you don't use the return leg, you will be charged the full price for a single. Warofdreams talk 17:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to discuss the economics and try to explain this seemingly irrational pricing structure. For any product there are different people willing to pay a different price.  Ideally, the seller would like to sell to all people who are willing to pay more than the product costs them to provide.  However, they also want to get as much money from each buyer as that buyer is willing to pay.  The buyers, of course, want to pay as little as possible.  Most methods for getting some buyers to pay more than others rely on making buyers do something annoying to get the cheaper price, from haggling, to clipping coupons, to figuring out schemes like yours, to clucking like a chicken.  It is assumed that the wealthier buyers won't put themselves through all that and will just pay "full price".   If you were a millionaire, do you think you'd have compared prices or just taken the first one they offered ?  StuRat (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm not sure if this is true in the way that I understood it or maybe I understood it wrong, but I think I read somewhere about a company, maybe in order to promote themselves, who offers a flight from I think the United States to Ireland, for about US $10, it was on some kind of news website, and not a hoax. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be selling at a loss, which companies do on rare occasions, to drum up new business. There are also many scams, however, which only appear to be selling at a loss.  "Bait and switch", for example, is when they only offer a tiny number of the advertised rates (far fewer than the number which will be applied for), and then steer the dissapointed buyers to their higher priced products.  Another scam is to add all sorts of hidden costs, like "fuel recovery fee".  In orders of products by mail, "shipping and handling" is often the hidden fee that can be as much as, or far more than, the actual product price. StuRat (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Book recommendation for someone who is grieving the loss of a parent
Hello! I hope the ref desk can be of some sort of help for me and for my friend (we'll call him TJ).

I have a close friend whose mother passed on after a brief battle with cancer. After her passing, my friends and I were amazed at how our friend TJ managed to keep it all together. Well, over a week ago, he finally broke down and has been having an very difficult time with everything. He feels lost, guilty, crazy, worthless... the whole 9 yards and needs constant reassurance. While we all try to keep him in good spirits by listening and giving him advice, but nothing really seems to be sinking in. I wanted to give him a book that can hopefully make better sense of everything that has been going on. Is there a book available at a local chain book store like Borders or Barnes and Noble that anyone could recommend? --Endless Dan 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - If possible, please post response on my talk page. Thank you and God bless.
 * PPS - The reason I am not researching this stuff on my own (like via Amazon.com) is because other then Wikipedia and the company's website, I cannot access the internet from my current location. I'm not just asking someone to do leg work for me. Thanks again.


 * The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying might be of some help.--droptone (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Acording to On Death and Dying they may have been in the denial stage until recently. The breakdown they suffered may actually be a good sign, as it shows they are moving into the later stages toward eventual accceptance. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good search terms, when you can get to a usable internet connection, are "grief" and "bereavement". This is from GrowthHouse, Improving Care for the Dying -- American, but probably similar in other developed countries:
 * Call your telephone operator and ask for the numbers for your local mental health association and your local suicide prevention center. Both types of agency have good grief referral lists. You need not be suicidal to get a grief referral from a suicide prevention center.
 * Use the Yellow Pages and call hospitals and hospices near you. Ask to speak with the Bereavement Coordinator, Social Worker, or Chaplain's Office to get a local grief referral. Many hospitals and hospices provide grief support to clients for up to one year following a death and offer groups to the general public.
 * These can be goldmines of relevant information, and may even have lending libraries. TJ is lucky to have friends like you. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * PS The same question was posted here. Please do not cross-post questions. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Red and white checkered tower
I've seen red and white checkered towers at several airports. What is the significance of the colouring system, and the pattern? What are these towers? --anon 59.183.38.26 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the pattern is used on all kinds of structures, to make them more visible. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a general high-visibility pattern used on structures near airports. There's a good chance that you're looking at a radio navigation beacon, such as a VHF omnidirectional range or Non-directional beacon system. --Carnildo (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Spurious question about Health Insurance in USA
Spurious because it's not going to happen - but - if my wife and I (both early 60's and retired from UK public service) wanted to live in California - assuming we were allowed to - and given that we are financially independent and stable - but also given our age and a few age-related health conditions such as arthritis, raised though managed blood-pressure and drugs-controlled cholesterol, what might we pay either as a couple or individually for USA health insurance? I appreciate this is not an exact science but a near-miss would be close enough. Thanks. 92.1.244.101 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, this question is not spurious but rather, hypothetical and speculative. Its implications and those of the answers are quite serious and worth considering. Enjoy your retirement! -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC) (former resident of California, now expat living in a country with mandatory health coverage partly in the form of sick funds)


 * Guesstimate: Around US$500 per month for each of you. However, coming from the UK where just about everything medical is free, you may not realize that insurance has all sorts of exclusions, deductions, and copays.  If you wanted insurance that would replicate what you have in the UK, you would need to pay far more, if you could even find it. StuRat (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, we don't know that they're used to getting "everything medical" for free. Lots of people in the UK go to private doctors, even though they could be treated by the NHS for free. Presumably the private system affords care either better or faster care (or both) if you're willing to pay for it. Canada on the other hand is much more aggressive at trying to prevent willing buyers and willing sellers of medical care from getting together, though one province did go too far for their supreme court's taste a couple years ago and got shot down. Privately paid medical care is not actually illegal there, but you'd almost think so from reading the news. So the option of last resort for Canadians who can't get what they need through the official system is to come to the United States for treatment. --Trovatore (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're insurable, you'll be paying somewhere between $500 and $1000 a month for insurance, plus any deductables, copayments, or costs for non-covered treatments. Insurance equivalent to what you get in the UK simply isn't available. --Carnildo (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lloyd's of London is reputed to insure anything. At a price. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, could I insure my left eyeball (the better of the two, it must be said) againt fork accidents?

Golf question
I was playing a golf video game yesterday, but I've never played real golf before and don't really know the rules. When I hit the ball out of bounds I'm presented with 3 options: rehit, "drop here" or "nearest relief." What is the difference between the latter two options, and how will it affect my score?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Penalty (golf) might help. I don't play golf either but as far as I understand it, both of the latter options will add one stroke to your score.   The "nearest relief", from what I understand, will add one stroke and allow you to hit another ball from where the first went out of bounds.  Dismas |(talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Boy, that article's a mess. The "nearest relief" sounds correct, but I still don't understand what "drop" means, in the context of golf.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know with a "drop" you lose a stroke and a believe you just literally drop the ball from about shoulder length into the inbounds area and you have to hit it from wherever it lands. Perhaps a mulligan would be your best option. Useight (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rehit would be hitting the ball from the original position. "Drop here" refers to dropping the ball near where it went out of bounds.  "Nearest relief" refers to designated relief areas.  Each golf course (during pro events) have designated areas where you can drop the ball if it goes into a hazard.  It will be further away from the hole than the "drop here" option, but relief areas are nice and even with short grass so it's usually the best option. You'll get a penalty stroke no matter which option you choose. Tex (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense. Thank you.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians who love telenovelas
Do you know any Wikipedians out there that love telenovelas? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try looking around WP:WikiProject Soap Operas.— Insanity Incarnat  e  22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate them as they not give you a chance to bond wive the characters before its over.

Origin of phrase
Moved to Language RefDesk, where more knowledgeable volunteers may be able to help. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Supernatural Powers
This is such a lame question, but here it goes. I read an article actually I've read many articles saying that we only use only about 90% of our brain. Is this true? Some scientist say that the other 10% is for long dead instincts. Could this possible that we killed of survival techniques because we don't need them any more? Others say something so absurd, but say the other 10% may hold unnatural abilities such as telepathy. If this were true how would one use the other 10% of "supernatural" abilities?

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * Hi. Well, there have been documented cases of hypnosis that works, premonitions, ghosts, levitation, Psycic ability that cannot be explained otherwise, etc, but it's up to you to believe whether or not it's true I guess. Many animals can sense when a tsunami will come, for example, because after the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake they fled uphill, and more humans died in a lot of places than wild animals. Also, we tend to only use a very small part of our brain at any given one time, so that memories and other stuff can be "triggered". Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 00:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First there's the brain (the organ) and then there's the Mind to do with thought. What you saw was an urban legend covered here and with other handy links. Saying we only use 10% of our brains implies that there is so much more; but science-wise a lot of the brain is for running the body and processing information. There's a part (Hippocampus?) that is supposedly more primitive and associated with extra abilities, memory and dreaming. In psychology the subconscious mind is related to auto-suggestion, hypnosis, psychic stuff. Psychoanalyst Freud declared dreams the royal road to the unconscious, and with contemporary Carl Jung, saw them as a link between the conscious and unconscious mind. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The claim that we only use x% of our brain is a well-travelled urban legend. No scientists claim it, but it's always appearing in fiction, TV programmes and newspapers (much like the silly need-to-drink-8-glasses-of-water-a-day thing). Snopes isn't really authoritative, but you can get a good overview from it here. 79.66.106.188 (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Most "supernatural" abilities violate conservation of energy a priori, so they're unlikely to be real (but then again, they do advertise themselves as not being "natural", i.e. confined by nature, so I guess that should come as no surprise). But no, as they say, we use 100% of our brain. When you take out even little pieces of it, there can be major consequences. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So how do we explain this? Richard Avery (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't remember the name, but early on saw a wiki biography of a man who functioned fully (as a doctor or such?), socially involved, married etc, and it was only at the post-mortem he was found to have a reduced brain that only lined his skull (hydrocephalous?). Can't find the ref either but on google there's the case of a student with 128 iq honors math etc when scanned found to have similar. Gets ewww-ish though.  Julia Rossi (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, so as we have seen in other contexts, it ain't the size that's important but how you use it. Richard Avery (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the results section of that article Richard? There are major consequences, just as 98 said. Skittle (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm not sure I believe it given what has been cited above. But I accept your point. Richard Avery (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)