Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 August 14

= August 14 =

Swimming World Records
Why are swimming world records broken quite fequently, whereas track and field world records can stand for more than a decade without being broken. Quite a few swimming world records have been broken at the Olympics so far, wheras in the athletics there might be 1 at most world records broken. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.35.93 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Likely because of advances in both swim gear and pools- for example, many people are attributing the success of Michael Phelps to the design of the swimming pool (it's both deeper and wider than an ordinary one, thus creating less turbulence) and his swimsuit (or whatever they call it professionally) which has a new design to lessen drag. But in above-ground sports, slight changes in equipment don't affect the athletes as much- for example, a new brand of silk shorts is not going to help basketball players any! --Alinnisawest(talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Phelps is only wearing the bottom half of the new suit, he isn't wearing the top part.  Corvus cornix  talk  01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Swim training and even swimming technique are changing radically because (as a competitive sport) it is comparatively new. Butterfly isn't even 100 years old. Compare that to running and throwing, which have been around longer than our species.  Plasticup  T / C  01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, they say that butterfly will someday be faster than freestyle. Sounds crazy, but look at the trends in the world records over time...  Plasticup  T / C  01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a nit: you mean it will be faster than crawl (front crawl, Australian crawl, American crawl, whichever you like). Freestyle means that you are free to pick any style, except when it's a leg of an individual medley a medley. --Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really a "nit"--it's a very important and interesting point. Should butterfly become reliably as fast as crawlstroke (by any name), freestyle races might become a sight to see--some athletes relying on one stroke and some on the other.  Crawl would remain a staple of the last leg of the medley race, but pure freestyle races might become "free" in a sense that they haven't been in decades. User:Jwrosenzweig as 71.112.40.194 (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this has happened in the past. Because backstroke and front-crawl use different muscles, some distance swimmers liked to alternate between to two stokes so as to rest certain muscle groups within the race. The 1500-freesytle world record was once broken by a man alternating between 100m of front crawl and 100m of backstroke. I haven't see this in modern times, but it is technically possible.  Plasticup  T / C  12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The pool itself is being talked about as a contributing factor, it's depth and tighter climate control. Plus it's indoors which helps. In Athens they were competing in an outdoor pool. RxS (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the changing design of the pools is contributing measurably to the swimmers' ability to swim faster and faster, how can they meanigfully compare records from today against those of, say, 50 years ago? It seems to me that if today's swimmers had the pools from 50 years ago to swim in, all other factors being equal, they'd be swimming more slowly.  Conversely, if the swimmers from 50 years ago had today's pools to swim in, they would have swum faster than they did.  Aren't these record comparisons somewhat fundamentally flawed?  --  JackofOz (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wanna talk about track shoes?  Plasticup  T / C  12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, Plasticup, they think that the butterfly will be faster than freestyle because of the trends of changes in world records? That seems like a questionable conclusion. The rates of change in newer events will be faster than the rates of change of older events. This can be explained by the fact that the best techniques for old events have been determined and there is very little room for improvement due to physical constraints. This is akin to why it is easier to go from a 7min mile to a 6min mile than from a 5min mile to a 4min mile. There are boundaries on human achievement due to physical constraints. This explanation seems, at least at first glance, to be correct given that our article on the Butterfly stroke states that it is "the newest swimming style swum in competition". (Also) this explanation would also work for why rates of change in women's events are quicker than rates of change in men's events. Even in the West where we pride ourselves on being progressive in respect to women's issues, we've only been accepting of women athletes for the past ~50 years compared to the long history of love for men's competition.


 * If you want to argue that the butterfly events will have faster times than the freestyle events, then you'll need to appeal to some sort of analysis of the mechanical aspects of the strokes involved and not the rates of change in achievement. A good book which dicusses these sorts of issues is Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin (US title) by Stephen Jay Gould.--droptone (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Why spoil a perfectly good empirical analysis with all that subjective "analysis of the mechanical aspects"? You are bound to mess it up.  Plasticup  T / C  14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason that butterfly events should ever have faster times than freestyle events — because if it were an advantage to swim fly in the freestyle events, the swimmers would do so, as they are perfectly within their rights to do. I suppose there could be an adjustment period before fly specialists realized they ought to enter the free events, though. --Trovatore (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with Droptone and Trovatore on this one. To get the torso out of the water for the recovery the swimmers need to dig their legs into the water to a degree that goes beyond a forward thrusting motion and actually brakes them quite a bit. To get faster they'd have to modify the stroke by somehow either angling their entire body downward a bit during the stroke so they can turn up in more of a fluid motion or do some kind of double kick during the recovery phase. My guess is that they've both been tried and the first one probably doesn't work because they would need to get all of the force to get out of the water from their arms and the second probably doesn't work because and forward momentum producing motion from the legs would cause the body to straighten out before the arms are ready. So, unless someone comes up with something brilliant, I don't think the butterfly will surpass the crawl. -LambaJan (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. Freestyle is not a style. It's an event in which you are free to choose your style (hence the name, free style).
 * The style most people currently choose is front crawl. But if swimmers got to the point that they could swim butterfly faster than they could swim front crawl, then they would choose that instead in freestyle events, and therefore the times in the freestyle events would still be as fast as in fly events; it's just that the winners of the free events would be swimming fly rather than crawl. --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's funny, I knew someone made that point. I should keep better track of who says what. Sorry for misrepresenting you. -LambaJan (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * On a related note, is there a possibility that the crawl might become an event in its own right if/when it loses its place in the freestyle events? --Random832 (contribs) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick one - Estonian pronounciation of the female given name, "Katrin"
Ah, I feel kind of foolish but I'm getting conflicting answers on the internet. Kat-rin ? Kaht-reen [as in Katrina] ? I'm sure both are used, I'm just not sure which one (or another?) is used in Estonia. Thanks! Kinou (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This question is better suited for the language help desk so I moved it to there.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic baseball pitching: bounce off ground?
In an Olympic baseball game shown today, the Korean pitcher appeared to be bouncing the ball off the ground so that it was rising as it crossed the plate. He was doing all right against the American minor league players who constitute the U.S Olympic baseball team, since Korea won. If this is a useful technique, why is it nerver done in amateur or professional baseball in the U.S.? Because it looks too much like Cricket? Bouncing off the ground is bound to lower the speed of the ball and give the batter far more time to assess the pitch and react. Edison (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For Major League Baseball at least, rule 2.00 states (in part): "If the pitch touches the ground and bounces through the strike zone it is a “ball.”  anonymous6494 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That explains why they never do it in major league baseball! Another departure of olympic baseball from how it is normally played. Still, it is interesting that it can be so effective a technique to place the ball where the batter does not expect it. Are Korean pitchers skilled at this technique from playing cricket? Seems unlikely. Edison (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By striking the ground with the ball and imparting spin on the ball the pitcher, like a cricket bowler, is able to vary the angle at which the ball leaves the ground and consequently reduce the amount of time the player has to react to a number of variables, not only sideways movement but vertical angle as well. Richard Avery (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we sure that this is actually a rule in Olympic baseball? Rmhermen (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm almost positive it isn't. The IBAF rules say that they use the Official Baseball Rules, 2008 edition.  I read through the rulebook on the IBAF site and they don't seem to offer any exemptions or alterations to the rules regarding pitching.  Unless someone can provide a link to an assertion of this, I'd say--sorry, Edison--that either Edison didn't see what he thought he saw, or that the U.S. players were inexplicably swinging at pitches that had bounced.  It is possible, of course, to miss a bounced pitch (which would be a strike) or to hit it to a fielder and be out...in which case the Korean pitcher would seem to be "doing all right".  But as the bounced pitch is, by definition of the rules, wild and a ball, why would the batters swing at them unless by mistake?  If there's video of the game you saw, Edison, I'd be interested to see it.  User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The alternative would be that the pitcher was throwing a ball which dropped and then rose, also unlikely. I just know what I saw and marvelled at. Edison (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Blood iron test
I gave blood today and first they checked the iron level- they put a drop of a blood in some kind of greenish solution and then watched it for a second before deciding it was fine. What did they put it in and how does it tell them the iron level? 70.162.28.222 (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the "CuSO4 Gravimetric Method" (can't find an article on it here). Basically, the blood is dropped into some Copper sulphate and the higher the haemoglobin in the cells, the quicker the blood drop sinks (haemoglobin is heavy). It provides a quick and easy method to detect anaemia, and is accurate enough to screen out those who need to keep all the iron they have!. Fribbler (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this possible?
From the Conservapedia Commandments: Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. Harassment is punishable by 2 years in jail per 47 USC § 223. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor. How exactly can you go to jail for posting an "obscenity" on that site? I never knew it was illegal. Same for vandalism: how in the world can someone go to jail for ten years for vandalizing an internet page? Reporting the IP addresses of vandals so they can go to jail seems pointless in the first place, right? They do change all the time. I hope someone can help me with my curiosity :) CL — 08:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can report the IP with a timestamp to the ISP and they CAN see who's assigned to that IP at that time but wow that would massively violate the freedom of speech. Welcome to the oppressive world Comrade America. --antilivedT 08:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what I thought in the first place. How can a conservative site make such claims when it violates what they base their ideals on: the first amendment. Ten years for vandalism, I'd like to see the uproar on that - CL — 08:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're surprised that conservatives are hypocrites? DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1st amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with expressing yourself on Conservapedia, or Wikipedia for that matter. Neither of those are the government, and neither has an obligation to provide you with a forum.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Anyone actually checked what 18 USC S 1470 actually says? It wouldn't surprise me if sites were careful. Wikipedia of course doesn't want 'obscenity' other, but tends to have a less legalistic approach to dealing with violaters. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers obscene matter to another individual who has not attained the age of 16 years, knowing that such other individual has not attained the age of 16 years, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both." Obscenity doesn't mean swear words, of course, it means this. -- BenRG (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These days, American civil rights fall under the perview of the liberal agenda. I'd have thought that defending a 230 year old document would be considered "conservative", but hey.  Plasticup  T / C  12:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Conservapedia is a bunch of raving maniacs. Why would you worry about their bogus legal notices? They've already had problems with trying to report purported vandals to the FBI, and the FBI told them to go shove it because they were wasting their time. Don't confuse Conservapedia with "conservatives" in general. It's a small, select group of idiots. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the above. The 'commandment' is simply incorrect, like so much else on Conservapedia.
 * Having said that, do you have a link to "They've already had problems with trying to report purported vandals to the FBI"? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, most helpful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that diff. What whackjobs. CL — 23:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that if you rearrange the letters of "Conservapieia," they also spell "Cadavers opine." Edison (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No they don't :) *cough* swap your second I for a D :) Lemon martini (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, aas providence, aced pervasion, overpaid acnes, paced aversion, avoidance reps, paradise coven, variance dopes, aspic endeavor, parade novices and vane picadores:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interestingly the whole incident appears to have been a huge embarrassment to the Conservapedia whackjobs. If you look at the bottom of the article DJ Clayworth kindly linked to, it gives an extensive list of all the users blocked in order to cover up the fiasco. One user was blocked for “mentioning the FBI.” lol. Wikipedia meets Nineteen Eighty-Four. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See obscenity. Obscenity is not considered "speech" under the First Amendment. However, the bar for what constitutes obscenity is quite high. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disturbance
I am a 20yr old guy studying engineering in a hopeless college in India.I get pretty disturbed when I realise that a girl has had a crush on me.It looks cheap to worry about it,even to me.I get a high whenever a girl calls me handsome.I behave as if I have conquered the whole world.I am a dud in regular academics though I have a scientific bent of mind.I am a loser who has a hopeless future yet I still think I am someone great.I realised lately that I am just a daydreamer who does'nt has a concrete ambition.I think I am suffering from a mental paralysis.I know everything yet still do nothing.Please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.49.2 (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is not a place for medical diagnosis -- especially on the miscellaneous page. Since many of the things you describe are related to your own thoughts and feelings, you might consult a mental health professional such as a psychologist or psychiatrist.  OtherDave (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your topic/question seems strangely familiar --I've seen it's like on the desks before, but don't have the reference. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Railway track geometry
In the field of railway permenant way, are there any standards used in respect of the geometry of track layouts? (I.E is there a fixed set of switch radii)?
 * Major railroads since the 19th century published standards for turnouts, etc based on rail weight, type of switch etc. There were probably local railroads in bygone days where the geometry was determined by the engineer at the time of the installation. Edison (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Theyc ertainly used to have, and I think they'd be silly if they didn't still have - clearance distances between tracks and maximum curvatures seem like very important details to, erm, keep track of. I know I've seen such standardsfor the UK annotated in an old book that my dad owned (it may still be in my back room somewhere among his hundreds of railway books), but I'm afraid I've not found a comprehensive online or readily available source for them. It's likely that different countries would have different regulations, depending on such details as standard carriage size and track gauge - it would be different in Canada to India to the UK.


 * The most comprehensive document I've found online is an old standard for the UK (a guess that your use of the term "Railway" is that that might be a closer mark than a US document). It's in pdf form, downloadable here. Grutness...wha?  00:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Distance between tracks, at least, seems like it would logically be part of the structure gauge. --Random832 (contribs) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I remember an example problem from my high school math class that said (by way of explanation of the problem setup) that tracks have to enter and exit curves gradually (i.e. continuously changing radius of curvature rather than a straight segment joined to a circular segment) but that might have been made up for the math book rather than actually being true. --Random832 (contribs) 17:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Vatican
In the Vatican, the Secret Vatican Archives can only be viewed if one already knows exactly which document you want to see, and can prove that you have the relative qualifications to see it. Further more an index in part or in whole is forbidden, so surely there are documents in there that are important to history and humanity, that no one knows about, nor ever will, and they will never be seen, surely this is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So all documentation that could be potentially import to history/humanity has to be publically accesible? Why? The wrongness (or rightness) of this situation is entirely down to individual perpsective on privacy and issues of public-interest. There isn't a definitive answer. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer to "why" would be so we can learn about history and the world, I should think... but really, I can't tell you definitively if it's "right" or "wrong". No one here can. It's a matter of personal perspective. --Alinnisawest(talk) 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowing that there is some unreachable knowledge stored there adds some well-needed mystery to the world. I think that this is the right thing to do.  Plasticup  T / C  14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there weren't 'secret Vatican archives' we would never have got books like The Da Vinci Code. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh, they'll open it all up eventually, and index and archive it all properly. But who knows, most of it could be useless crap! (Well, probably not.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to admire the low-key humor of putting your Secret Archives on the internet. Also, the Catholic Church has its own priorities and does things in its own time; they're even planning to put up a statue of Galileo.  Digitizing their documents could take a while.  The Codex Sinaiticus project, which involved digitizing some 700 pages of a bible dating from the time of Constantine, was projected to cost £680,000 and take four years. -- OtherDave (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that, according to our article, it is Publication of the indexes that is forbidden, not the actual creation of such. I assume (but cannot prove) that the official librarians have a set of (probably handwritten) indexes, reserved for their exclusive use. With 52 miles of shelving, there has to be some sort of master index, such that when you go to the librarian and say "I want the Codex Tiberius (1745)" they have some way of finding it. I also imagine that the Pope and Master Librarian has special dispensation to say something along the lines of "Bring me everything about St. Sebastian", without having to know the exact titles. It's just the rest of the world that has to follow the rules.-- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Important to historians, surely, but humanity? This is just ancient history.  Who would be affected by the revelation that Charlemagne was gay or that Jeanne d'Arc was the mother of three or that Torquemada was Jewish?  Fabulously entertaining but not important.  Saintrain (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

business studies
time is said to be the most vital resources in management discuss[eddie] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.210.168 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read our articles management and time management? They may be of help to you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can Canadian Healthcare be used in the U.S.?
An individual that is a Canadian citizen plans to live with relatives in the U.S. for approximately 6 months. She does not plan to become a U.S. citizen. Would she be able to use her Canadian Healthcare in the U.S.? Would she need to get a "rider” of some type through the Canadian health insurance system that allows her to seek services here in the U.S.? I appreciate any information you can give me. Thank you!  Elephantandgiraffe (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)giraffe


 * She should contact her provincial health provider (OHIP, whatever); they will be able to tell her. My general understanding is that yes, provincial programs continue to cover residents for 90 days after leaving the province. The next 90 days would be up to her, and (if memory serves) she will have to re-establish residency for 90 days upon return before resumption of benefits. That's pulled out of some very hazy areas of memory, though. She really should contact her provincial health provider. Prince of Canadat 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) The rules vary somewhat from province to province in Canada, as health care is a provincial rather than a federal responsibility. In general, however, Canadians travelling abroad will almost certain want to purchase private health insurance, as their provincial health plans will provide very limited out-of-country coverage.  For Ontario – Canada's most populous province – their Ministry of Health provides the following advice (their emphasis):


 * When I travel outside of Canada will OHIP pay the same medical expenses that are covered in Ontario?


 * No. If you are a resident of Ontario and you are insured under OHIP, you are entitled to very limited funding for a limited range of medical services when you are travelling outside of Canada.  For this reason, you are strongly advised to purchase additional health insurance every time you leave Canada.


 * That link contains a number of other frequently asked questions as well. (For reference, inpatient services are only reimbursed up to $200–$400 per day, far below what you're likely to actually pay at any U.S. hospital.)  Similar guidance likely applies to residents of other provinces. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the rules about returning to Canada to use health care? If you have moved to the States permanently, can you return to Canada and use Canadian healthcare if you get sick?  TastyCakes (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it varies province by province but there is usally a waiting period - typically ninety days - before you are covered unde the province's health care plan. It is also necessary to establish residence in the province. This even applies for moves within Canada - I am moving to British Columbia from Ontario, and I will not be covered under BC's plan for the first three months. However, I will be covered by OHIP for ninetay days after I leave the province, so I'm OK. - EronTalk 14:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait till she sees how much insurance in the US costs! This is one of the main reasons I am considering a permanent move from the US to Canada.  192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It also depends on why she is going to the US (to hang about, to work, to study). In some provinces, students don't lose their health care coverage if they go to school out of province. In any event, though, the amount provincial health care covers can be a minuscule fraction of what an American doctor or hospital will charge. I was shocked to find out that in the US one could be charged up to $500 for a plain physical. Manitoba Health Care reimburses something like $20 per visit, no matter the reason, and only slightly more if the doctor is a specialist. In Alberta ob/gyns and family physicians are paid the grand total of $500 for a low-risk pregnancy. That covers everything from the earliest pregnancy test up to and including delivery and the first post-natal check-up. An American doctor's fee for the same services could be well into five figures. --NellieBly (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The "free" health insurance that most Canadians receive covers only basic healthcare -- no prescriptions, no vision, no dental, no physical therapy, etc. So Canadians, like Americans, usually also get insurance through their workplace to cover things the provincial insurance plan doesn't cover. One of those things is out-of-country emergency healthcare. If you don't have supplementary health insurance that covers that expense, then it's important to buy travel insurance before leaving Canada. Note that sometimes, Canadian provinces send patients to the U.S. for healthcare unavailable in Canada or will agree to cover a procedure in the U.S. if it cannot be done in a reasonable amount of time in Canada.-- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

History of world records
I am looking for the dates and values of swimming world records over the last 50-60 years. I'm sure there is a database that catalogues every new record, but I can't seem to get my hands on it.  Plasticup  T / C  14:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The official body for granting world records in swimming is FINA. I checked their web site but it has recently been revamped and not all documents have been transferred over yet. So, I can't find historical data on records there, but that doesn't mean they won't be there at some point in the future. - EronTalk 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Swimming records includes a bunch of "World record progression ..." articles, example World record progression 100 metres freestyle which gives several references and links. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

cracking knuckles
What makes the noise when you crack knuckles? It seems like something that would be quite disturbing if I weren't so used to it. TastyCakes (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See Cracking joints Nanonic (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Family Crests & Coats Of Arms
Hi there, can you please tell me why the coat of arms/family crests keep changing depending on what website you go to?....how is anyone surposed to know the correct one? The spellings of the surname were all the same. Your help would be much appreciated, thanks,

Ony —Preceding unsigned comment added by ONY44 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Coats of arms are not given to families but to individuals. Rmhermen (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The books or websites that promise to find "your coat of arms" are just looking for a coat of arms awarded to someone with a similar name to you. Since they aren't really 'your' arms there is no 'correct' one. Feel free to pick whichever you want. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of nonsense in the coat-of-arms business, and plenty of people willing to sell you crests, shields, and other heraldic tchotchkes. As Rmhermen points out, in many (most?) European countries, arms were awarded to individuals.  In Scotland, for example, the Lord Lyon King of Arms is the ultimate arbiter of who is entitled to "use arms."  You might find the "About coats of arms" page of interest, though of course this applies only to arms granted by the Lord Lyon.  You can pick whichever you like, if you're so inclined, though in Scotland if the arms have been registered, infringement is a crime and can be prosecuted. — OtherDave (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In England and Wales, likewise, pretending to arms falsely is an offense tried by the Court of Chivalry, which hasn't done much lately but in a ruling fifty years ago found that it does still exist. Many people (having a decent degree is good enough) can buy new arms from the College of Arms. Algebraist 09:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As DJ Clayworth said, they aren't "your" coat of arms they are somebody's who has a similar name to you. Actually coat of arms can be family arms although this usually goes for continental Europe not the UK. As mentioned above, in some countries it is an offence to use unregistered arms. Some countries don't require registering, although traditional heraldic rules apply to self made arms too. ;) --Cameron* 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Joining an Improv Comedy Group
How does one join such a group? Better yet, where are the closest classes to the Lehigh Valley (Allentown, PA)? I have attempted to do my own research, but I cannot locate any classes near me. Can any one give me some good insight on this? Thanks!

Kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.190.77 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Try find some open-mike (microphone) nights and go to them, try finding people who are part of the improv-group and befriend/ask them about joining, put yourself forward to do little 'sets' in the local area and try raise your profile. All these things will help you in your quest. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who's in a (fairly inactive) improv comedy group, I'd certainly agree with the user above. If you can't find any improv comedy groups around your way, or none which will take you on, consider asking any actors or stand-up comedians you know if they would be interested.


 * Improv comedy courses aren't very common, in my experience, although some general improv training might be useful. The most important things are to be confident, remember to enjoy yourself and play to the audience.  Pursue themes which go down well with the audience, and don't worry if they don't get something or you feel your performance in one round isn't great - provided the audience are laughing heartily by the end, they won't remember any hiccups along the way.  The great advantage of working with a sizeable group is that you don't have to have a great idea every round - you can feed off the other performers.  Oh, and most important - don't drink alcohol before you go on, or you will probably find your performance far more amusing than the crowd! Warofdreams talk 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)