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

= February 14 =

Nupedia
A question Wikipedia seems not to have the answer but should: Who coined the name Nupedia and what is its etymology? 16@r (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would guess nu comes from new, and pedia from encyclopaedia. And they probably just didn't think newpedia looked right. HS7 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I asked Larry Sanger and he confirmed me this etymology but he stated he didn't coin the name. Jimmy Wales may have the answer, I'm gonna ask him on his talk page. 16@r (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

God and Omnipotence
I’ve heard that Christianity claims that God is all-powerful, almighty, and omnipotent, that is, there is nothing that God cannot or is unable to do. I don’t understand. According to Christianity, does that mean that God can not only do anything that is physically impossible, but he can also do anything that is logically impossible, for example making one plus one equal three? According to Christianity, can God make one plus one not equal two, but equal three? Bowei Huang (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From the Reference Desk header at the top of this page:


 * Do not start debates or post diatribes. The reference desk is not a soapbox.
 * Thank you for your understanding about this. --hydnjo talk 02:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * However, you might like to read the article on omnipotence and look at the references and external links that it gives. --Anon, 02:57 UTC, February 14, 2008.


 * God can only declare "one plus one equals three" in Indiana.


 * Atlant (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and particularly this take about that. --hydnjo talk 03:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To the original poster: Religion makes no sense, it's just absurd. Don't try to understand it because it can't be understood, it's just faith. --Taraborn (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a rather harsh response to a good faith question. Tell that to all those who publish on religious philosophy each year... and when you've finished, go tell it to the millions who buy the books. Maybe some of them are, but not all of those people are absurd. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you asked about Christianity and one plus one. Christianity includes the concept that God can make one plus one plus one equal... one. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course god can do logically impossible things - such as making a world/universe out of nothing.. So the asnwer is yes 87.102.115.36 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you believe that god created the universe, then you believe that god created logic. Therefore, the only reason something seems logically impossible is because god made it seem to you that it would be logically impossible. QED. I prefer the Spaghedeity Mad031683 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But surely, since we created numbers and definitions and stuff like this, he can't change them, because that would be breaking our rules, not his. 3 is specifically defined as being 1+1+1, if it was anything other than this, it wouldn't be 3. HS7 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again you're applying logic, in this discussion we presuppose that god created logic and could have made it however he wanted. This means he could have made a universe where it seems as logically ridiculous that 1+1=2 as 1+1=3 is to us. This might possibly be my most airtight argument ever, if anyone disagrees with me, I just point out that their logic is made up. Mad031683 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He may have created logic, but we created maths and language. HS7 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But math is based on logic, and according to the Tower of Babel god created language. Mad031683 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't he only create the languages that existed at the time? And one language must have existed before then. HS7 (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One language did exist, the one that Adam spoke on the day he was created so that was also created by god (assuming a literal interpretation of the Bible). Its not really language we're talking about anyway, it's the abstract concept of 3. Even if 3 was called "two" it doesn't change what 3 is in this universe. I'm saying omnipotence implies the ability to create a universe where 1+1 is equal to what our concept of three is. Mad031683 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just riffing here, but if you can only be logical as far as the information you have (the givens), then the subject who's meant to have invented the tricky "rules" must have a sleeve up which some or many unknowns s/he/it has put, wouldn't you say? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Making the universe out of nothing is indeed logically impossible, but it's an impossibility only matched by the impossibility of there having always been matter. It's just a question of which one is the less-impossible impossibility (to use a Rumsfordism).  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to understand this question and i want to present my interpretations. I think that question has been made complex by the use of mathematical numbers. We know that numbers 1, 2, 3 ............... themselves do not exist in their physical form. But they are used to tell us the presence of other things or phenomenon. Suppose you are given one apple from your father and one from your mother and, your father says that you have 2 apples, but suppose, you have the ability to create apples by yourself, without any material, without any help, and you create another apple, and now you have 3 apples, even when your father, calculating by the rules of mathematics, says that you can have at maximum 1+1=2 apples. You can say that for you 1+1 can be equal to 2, 3, 4,…. or even 0=n, provided that you are able to create things from nothing. If you agree with me that numbers themselves do not exist but are used to tell us the existence of other things, then you will agree with me that for a divine creator,  1+1= n or even 0=n

To clarify my point, I will suggest you to write your equation in the following form

1 man (whatever) + 1 man (whatever) = 2 men (whatever) Here note some points….. 1.    Numbers 1, 1,  2 have been used to represent the existence of man that have physical  existence 2.	If man does not exist, figures 1, 2 do not exist, and you can not write them to calculate an equation or FIND SOME RESULT. 3.	The product 2 just depends upon the PROCESS OF COMBINATION of factors 1 and 1 (in the left side of equation). and here consider that no other factor from NO EXISTENCE comes  and combines with product 2. 4.	Now consider GOD as omnipotent,  as is mentioned, OMNIPOTENT means  some one WHO CAN CREATE SOMETHING FROM NON EXISTENCE. This OMNIPOTENT GOD creats a man from NO EXISTENCE. This man is represented by another factor 1. 5.	And now add this factor created by OMNIPOTENT GOD  and add to the product 2. Your result will be more than 2  i.e.         	   1 man + 1 man= 2 man  +1 man( here the figure 1(right side) is representing the existence of one man that was created by OMNIPOTENT GOD  and  here the existence of figure 1 does not depend upon the combination of  factors 1 and 1 (in the left side of equation) as it is for the factor 2 (present in right side of equation)	     rewriting the equation	      1 man+ 1 man= 3 men FACTOR man IS COMMON IN BOTH SIDES. SO taking it common, and then dividing both sides by word -man-, and then simplifying the equation by mathematical rules	    1+1=3 or even 1+1= 3, 4, 5 ,………….n (If there is someone who can create factors from non existence ,and these  factors  are included in products) Shortly, I will suggest you not to talk about figures but talk about those entities for those who are using figures, then it will be easy for you to understand 1+1=3 for OMNIPOTENT GOD. thanks MUHAMMAD ASIF  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wheres Tupac grow up?
NWA to Compton, Snoop Dogg to Long Beach, California, Ludacris to Atlanta is like Tupac to what city? 99.240.177.206 (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read the article? He lived in Harlem in New York City from birth (1971) until 1984, then Baltimore until 1988, then Marin City, California. So it depends on what age range you think of as "growing up".  --Anon, 05:32 UTC, February 14, 2008.


 * It's in California where his career grew and Death Row Records was in Beverly Hills, (he was creating around Suge Knight etc) so maybe what he's known for is not where he grew up, but where his art was made so maybe, Los Angeles? The title of the 2002 documentary Tha Westside indicates identity of his style. Funny though, I always felt he's kind of New York, but can't find anything on that [add: except for the 13 years as Anon says (1971-84).] Julia Rossi (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

its an animal
fire + thunder..clue its an animal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.195.74 (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not here just for you to test us.
 * Is it a dragon? HS7 (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * musical guess: bird (Gibson Firebird and Gibson Thunderbird) ---Sluzzelin talk  12:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pokemon? xxx User:Hyper Girl 13:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking this too, but there is no fire/electric type. H YENASTE 03:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sluzzelin's guess is the best one yet. There is also Mozilla's internet suite consisting of Firefox and Thunderbird. But I'm thinking the question is asking about a specific animal. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * cat? (cat steven's firecat | thundercat motorbike) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.74.154 (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cat seconded. Schrödinger's cat can be in a superposition between being a firecat, a thundercat and a thundercat. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go with human. I'm assuming there are several, but here's one specific example. --Onorem♠Dil 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this a clue for a cryptic crossword, something I'm surprisingly hopeless at. I can generally see how the clue relates to the answer when I see it next day, but often it still remains cryptic.  Still, I'll have a stab at "lightning" (associated with thunder; often causes fire).  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lightning isn't an animal, is it? Although I do have a cat called lightning. Maybe that's it. HS7 (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypo -- Taking advantage of a modern day political machine in the US
I recently read a century old collection of notes by a master of the New York Irish machine. He gave simple advice for any machine aspirant: get a following of votes. He began his career by first asking his uninvolved cousin whether he could count on him to follow his vote. His cousin agreed so he marched down to the ward office and announced he represented two votes. A machineman bought him a drink and shook his hand. He asked more family members and gained a following of five. Now a party functionary would light his cigar if he ever swung by. He was able to eventually organize an "association" of local young men in his neighborhood. With a following of 60, the local politicians came to him, offering him jobs for votes.

Machines have largely disappeared in America, but allegedly some still exist. Out of curiosity, is this method still legal and feasible? Could say a street gang or high school clique dress up and pay a visit to whatever the palace of ward patronage is and declare an interest in becoming first time voters and ask their community leaders to pique their interest? Would it work?

Lotsofissues 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No clue about legality. About feasibility, though, it would depend on how many people we're talking about. And I get the feeling that today, in a world of mass media, money matters more than numbers alone. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious question
 If the blood flow away from a guys penis was restricted but the blood flow in wasn't, and they were sufficiently stimulated (either mentally or physically), would the pressure cause the penis to, for lack of a better word, burst?
 * Not unless you're postulating a high-pressure pump feeding directly in with nowhere else for the pressure to go. On the surface, all you've done is describe an erection. &mdash; Lomn 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A cock ring allegedly works this way. And, no, explosions have not been widely reported. Friday (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * But what might happen is that the blood would go stagnant and it would turn a funny colour and fall off.
 * I doubt a normal human heart could create anything like the pressure you would need for that though, and if it could, I would expect it to burst through the blockage first. HS7 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See priapism, a serious medical condition requiring rapid treatment. Gangrene is indeed one possible complication. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly relevant: some men amuse themselves by inflating their scrota to questionable degrees with saline. NSFW link.  --Sean 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear me. This image gives new life to the expression "he put all his eggs in the one basket".  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS Please for the sake of all that is good,DO NOT try this at home... Lemon martini (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lute
Having read the article Lute I was wondering why they fell out of use, surely the guitar would be developed alongside the lute, and that there would still have been luthiers making them as well as people playing them, why then did they disapear, with modern luthiers having to relearn how they were made? Lets say in 1750, every one stoped playing them and then in 1901 there was a revival. There mus have been peiople playing them and making them between this time even if they were not overly popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * More expensive to construct and more difficult to play, in comparison to guitars? AllenHansen (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And, simply, fashion. Lutes have continued to be played since the Renaissance, but only in very small numbers. There are many instruments that went completely out of fashion and have had to be reconstructed from pictures and descriptions. One that was just superceded was simply called a serpent (serpent (instrument) may work). Steewi (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Among many factors, some indeterminable, no doubt, one possible explanation for the lute's waning popularity among early 16th century Spanish luthiers might be found in the Spanish people's acquired rejection of all things "Arabic" after the Reconquista's successful conclusion in 1492. The instrument was to bear no resemblance to its Moorish mother, the oud. "Historians believe that in order to ease their feelings towards the lute, the Spanish luthiers decided to dispense with the vaulted body, the hard angle of the headstock, and create a new shape for the body. This alteration also simplified construction considerably and one cannot overlook the economics of the move. The instrument could no longer be considered a true lute, although its repertoire and playing technique remained virtually unchanged. The resulting instrument, the Vihuela de mano, probably sounded very much like a lute, as they are both tuned the same and both carry double courses. However, the Vihuela, with its flat back and indented waist, visually resembles the guitar." So lute players would have had no trouble switching instruments, and old compositions could be played on the new "European" vihuelas.
 * Despite this Iberian trend, luthiers in other parts of Europe continued to fabricate and even enhance the lute. Gradually adding strings and courses to the instrument, eventually making the fingerboard too wide to be spanned by the player's hand. As pointed out by AllenHansen, these sometimes monstrous archlutes became increasingly expensive to buy, cumbersome to carry and hold, and difficult to play in comparison with the vihuela and, later, the guitar. (From The History of the Guitar, George Pellegrin's website) ---Sluzzelin  talk  07:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Private military contractors and ranks
Do private military contractors (for instance Blackwater) use the same ranks as national militaries? And if not, what do they use?

Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To the riffiest of the American raff, i.e. regular RD contributors
I've got a $10 credit to Amazon.com that I can't use, seeing as I no longer reside in the U.S. of A. (more like the Disunited Provinces of Eh). It expires tomorrow, so who wants it? First come, first served. Contact me on my talk page. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say that exchange of goods is not allowed via Wikipedia. Also, if it expires tomorrow, how can one be sure they will get it in time to use it. Lastly, U.S.A. is a silly and dull name, what happened to Columbia? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (A) What exchange of goods? Did you see any price mentioned? (B) I would have emailed the gift certificate code. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing happened to it, it's still there, in south america, where it has been for a long time.HS7 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tsk, tsk. I knew someone would do this. I'm talking about Columbia, not Colombia. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Noone cares about Columbus, he just got lost in the middle of the carribbean. Lots of other people did a much better job of discovering america, both before and after him. HS7 (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, Leif Ericson, hardly anyone remembers you. My point is that the "U.S.A" needs a real name, not one that is just a description of the country. Imagine if, say, France was called "The United Regions of Europe" or some boring title like ours. Basically every country has a real name, why not us? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At least it's shorter than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Algebraist 21:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought they were going to call it Atlantis. And what about the united states of Mexico? And probably a few other countries like that. Anyway, this is off topic. HS7 (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the United Mexican States are named after the city of Mexico. We take the name of a continent with other countries on it. What is Canada? The "United Provinces of America"? No, it has a name: Canada. But yes, let's drop it, it is just another one of my silly gripes. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Ericsonia. Y'all should consider renaming your country to that. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that Amazon.com ships to Canada? They're even advertising to Canadians for them to take advantage of the weak U.S. dollar. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Man, I can't even give it away! Well, it's too late now. I decided to take Mwalcoff's advice and try to use it myself. True, you can ship to Canada, but the shipping charges are $4.99+$3.99 for a book, and then there would probably be duty to pay, so it's not really worth it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment:You can't really discover a country after it's already been discovered surely?? And hey before you start moaning about our great country's lengthy name,be glad you're not a resident of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (now with extendable passport) Lemon martini (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not complaining about the long name, pay attention. I'm complaining because we HAVE no name. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

PRESIDENTs LETTER FOR 100TH birthday
my mother will be 100 on 30 mar 08. is there a procedure to receive this letter ? ie, do you request or does the govt pick up by public records ? rex dunivent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.16.14 (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If your mother is a citizen of the United States of America, you want this. I don't know about other countries. Algebraist 19:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Laughing matter
I am in my 20's. Do you think I would get a negative reaction if I wore the following t-shirts? Or are some acceptable and others not? These sample shirts are in various sizes, the ones I have fit (some are a tight fit, though), I just want you to be able to see the shirts and guess if I will be laughed right out of the room. Oh, and I'm a guy.


 * Fits fine
 * Tight fit
 * Tight fit
 * Fits fine
 * Tight fit
 * Fits fine

Thanks for your opinions. 76.8.208.59 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tight fit or normal isn't something I can comment on.. They are all ok to wear except possibly the 'cars' one (first link)- that might get you lynched. Maybe pokemon is not ok.87.102.114.215 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd laugh at you. They're pretty loud. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are a bit loud - but what's wrong with loud? Surely you can't laugh at everyone in a loud shirt?87.102.114.215 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect it depends on what part of the world you're in. For instance, New Yorkers generally pretend not to notice anything unusual they see on the street, but many would certainly judge you for wearing loud t-shirts; in some places, the shirts themselves might not draw comment, but the fact that you're wearing them tight might lead to assumptions about your sexuality. -- Avocado (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and wear them, rebel against conformity and all that jazz. Then again, I usually don't judge people by what they wear, so I'm a little biased. (Side question: anyone know where I can get a t-shirt that says "You can't help but read this t-shirt" on the back?). 206.252.74.48 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i'd laugh at you. it's ridiculous, you're not a child!  sell that shit.

Are you a hipster? If so, you can wear these shirts with a black leather jacket, pearl necklace, and golf pants. --Masamage ♫ 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wear one of those for the job interview you've got tomorrow I might just take you on. (provided there are no other candidates of equal calibre)87.102.114.215 (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of what you wear them with and your attitude about wearing them. If you have a carefree attitude and wear it with otherwise fashionable clothing, you might be able to start a trend. If (like me) you're a bit more withdrawn and shy, people are more likely to pick up on your worry and make fun of you. Being fashionable and starting new trends needs the right personality. My guess is that if you're worried about it, you won't wear them well, but in the end it's up to you. If you have a friend who might wear something similar at the same time, it could take some of the heat off. Steewi (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mario, Sonic and Pikachu you could pull off as cool. The rest, no way. --Candy-Panda (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. 76.8.208.59 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)