Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 July 7

= July 7 =

UK SIZES TO US SIZES
I'm a size 8 in the UK... but what letter would that be, like an S(small); M(medium); L(large)? PLEASE TELL ME! Thank Youuuuu :) BringMeTheHorizon112 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We need more info. Is that your hat size, dress size, man's shoe size, or all of the above ? StuRat (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Googling UK SIZES TO US SIZES gives this helpful page as the first hit. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Size 8 UK dress size is definitely not M or L. It is S or XS. You should try the clothes on anyway because whatever the system the labels are often inaccurate. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How many MB's does 1 minute of music and 1 minute of video take up?
I'm wondering how much space music and video take up on a computer hardrive. In addition to the above question, about what length would the music (or video) have to be to take up one GB of space? I realize different file formats (such as .mp3 and .m4p) will take up different amounts of space, so what are those different amounts of space? Thanks. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This depends on the so-called bitrate, that is, how many bits per second a multimedia file takes up. Higher bitrate = higher quality = bigger size. So one minute of video can take up anything from a few megabytes to as high a number as you want. Say you have a music file with a bitrate of 256 kbit/s (this is the quality you get from the DRM-free files from iTunes and from the Amazon MP3 store) one minute will be 256 kbits/s * 60 s = 1.875 megabytes (this is a fairly high quality for audio). A standard youtube video has a bitrate of around 320 kbit/s, so that would be 2.34 megabytes. However, as I said, these are not hard and fast numbers, especially the video one. Youtube is fairly low quality, those numbers can grow virtually without limit. One minute of DVD-video (at about an average bitrate of 4.5 Mbit/s) is at 33.75 megabytes. --Oskar 01:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, as for how much music and video it takes to fill a gigabyte
 * iTunes/Amazon DRM-free music: 9.10 hours
 * Youtube quality video: 7.28 hours
 * DVD quality video: 30.34 minutes
 * (I love Google calculator :) Here you can really see the difference between different qualities in video. --Oskar 02:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth bearing in mind you can easily get DVD quality video at a much lower bit rate (at least half) by using a more efficient codec, e.g. H.264, compared to the rather old MPEG-2 used in DVDs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Religions without Claims of Evidence
Once, when I asked others if religions other than Christianity also claim to have proofs or evidences for themselves as the one true religion just as Christianity does, in Claims of Evidence for Other Religions as the One True Religion, one person replied: It is not too difficult to imagine a religion which says, "We don't claim to have any proof or evidence for our religion. You just have to believe it!".

Do such religions actually exist? If so, then what are religions are like that? If they don't have any evidence for themselves, why would anybody believe in them? Why would anybody be so stupid to believe in a religion which doesn't have any evidence for it? If you tell or show the evidences that Christians have, or claim to have, for Christianity to the believers of such a religion, what would they say and think?

Bowei Huang (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All of them? I don't mean to be flippant, but when you talk about "proof" the way you do, you mean something like scientific evidence, and there's no religion that provides that, not even Christianity. That's why they're called faiths, because you have to have faith in them. People believe in them because they want to believe in them, because it gives them comfort and makes them feel loved. It has nothing to do with looking at all religions objectively and then picking the one that's the most plausible. People who look at the world that way are called scientists.
 * Ask a person from some religion "How do you know, for a fact, that what you believe is true?" most of them will say that they feel the presence of God inside of them, or that they look at the world and see purpose in it, or something like that. They couldn't care less about the ontological argument for the existence of God or anything like that (although the teleological argument seems to have won a lot of people over recently). Most people just simply subscribe to the religion in which they were raised.
 * Personally, I don't subscribe to a religion, but I understand those who do. I understand why they don't need a proof. It's not for me, but hey, judge not lest ye be judged, right :P In my opinion, analyzing religion through the lens of "What proof is there?" is the wrong approach, since lets face it: there is none. --Oskar 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there was incontrovertible proof that a religion was the one true one, either:
 * vast numbers of people from other religions would become adherents, or, more likely
 * the religion would cease to exist because there's nothing to believe in any more. It would have become a matter of accepted fact (no different than the existence of Henry VIII or the achievements of Roger Federer), not faith or belief, and religions are all about believing in things that can't be proven scientifically one way or another.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bowei Huang is not asking whether religions actually have proof of their veracity. He is asking whether they all claim to have proof. Off the top of my head I cannot think of any religions which make no claims to evidence, but I am sure that some exist. Are you willing to count "cults"?  Plasticup  T / C  02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I had some liberal Jewish religious teachers who told me that we can't prove that our religion is "true," but, similarly, no one can prove that it's untrue, and therefore, we can assume it's true for the sake of its rituals, traditions and ethics, which tie into its metaphysical beliefs. Not everyone follows the same reasoning, however, and some consider that line of thought downright atheistic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I consider that line of thought stupid, but that's just me. --Oskar 02:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have been talking to an adherent of Reconstructionist Judaism. I'm no expert on that sect, but it is interesting for this discussion in that Reconstructionist Judaism is an explicit rejection of theology. Their main "belief" is that Judaism is culturally important and should be preserved by performing Jewish rituals. It makes no truth claims about God or any other theological concept so it may satisfy the original poster's question. --D. Monack | talk 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on what you mean by religion. To me, a sytem which contains no spiritual beliefs but is simply about preserving culture is not a religion. (This doesn't mean it's followers are stupid or it's unimportant.) For example, I preserve some part of my Chinese culture including the reunion dinner on Chinese New Year eve following some of the rituals on rare occasion (e.g. ancestor veneration). But I don't actually believe in any of this from a spiritual context and wouldn't say I practice any religion nor do I consider these religions practices of mine even if a lot of this originates from what are generally regarded as religious practices. But to answer Bowei's question, I think many non-organised religions and also Eastern religions are less focused on proof then simple belief. It's IMHO a different philisophy. It's not so much about 'you must do this or otherwise you'll go to hell' nor is there any call to convert people. If you believe you believe if you don't you don't. I'm not saying there are is no proof, obviously there will still be a lot of 'I did whatever and then whatever happened' from people who believe that carrying out (or not carrying out) some ritual or following (or not following) some practice either helped or harmed them but by the nature of most non-organised religions, there is no general concern about proving the 'religion' must be true/correct. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These were Reform Jews, not Reconstructionists, although I sometimes can't tell the difference either. I think the way to look at is that since science can't answer certain metaphysical questions, one assumes that his ancestors have been right in their metaphysical assertions for 3,000 years rather than assumes that they are wrong. I think that what Nil says applies to most cultures outside of Christian and Muslim ones. That is to say, "This is what we believe, this is what we do, and what other people believe or do is their own business." With that philosophy, there really is no battle to "prove" which religion is the "correct" one. Religion is simply part of a particular culture. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Archaeology and the Book of Mormon may be of interest.--droptone (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean postmodernism? Relativism? Bowei Huang (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Theologians tried to prove Christianity for centuries. See Existence of God for the arguments. Though accepted for a while, these arguments have nevertheless been discredited in one way or another. Faith is now the operative word in theological circles (creationists don't know their faith). And faith is different from beliefs, which may be based on evidence. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Buy Tickets Don't Use Them
I recently bought some baseball tickets for a game in august, however after purchasing some i realized i got tickets which were all the way at the top of the seating section i was looking at and so i decided to get some that were lower. all in all it was a total of $20 i spent. I want to make sure i won't get a no show charge for not sitting in those higher up seats. These lower seat tickets i got are the ones i am using. i was wanting to call the box office to release the earlier seats but they were no help. is it common for a sports club to charge you if you do not cancel earlier tickets?--logger (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The short answer is yes, you will be charged. This response presupposes you have left a credit-card number in order secure your tickets. As far as the organization is concerned, you have purchased both sets of tickets, which you may have done for any number of reasons. I don't know of any group, sports or otherwise, that allows you to return purchased tickets. The organization does not care if the seats are used, however, or even if they are picked up; they only care about being paid for them once they are sold/reserved.  This is personal experience speaking, which may be too much WP:OR for you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

These tickets are non refundable and i realize i can not get any refund back, all i want to do is release those seats for other fans and void those earlier tickets.--logger (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never encountered any scenario where you can simply "release" the seats and "void" the tickets. You could, however, sell them for face value on Craigslist or some other web site.  Or sell them near the stadium on game day.  As long as you sell them for face value and/or away from the premises of the stadium, you shouldn't have to worry about being arrested for scalping.  Check your local laws for specifics on this before attempting it though. Dismas |(talk) 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can also just give them away, if re-selling them is not an option. As you are going to the event anyway, drop by the "day of game" sales window and just give them to someone in line. Be a hero! ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or (better) be a ticket tout at the entrance and get (more than) your money back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.151 (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some sports teams will accept donations of unwanted tickets for charitable purposes (sick kids, etc.). -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Stubhub? 86.53.80.11 (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What to drink when sweating
What drink should one drink when sweating, but not physically active? Such a scenario could arise when one is lying or slowly walking on a very hot and sunny day. Sports drinks that replenishes electrolytes and other vital minerals lost through sweating are usually high in calories and are suited for those that sweat due to physical activity. Does there exist a drink that has the mineral-replenishing ability of a sports drink, but without the caloric content? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Propel is similar to Gatorade, Powerade, and the like, but it only has 6 grams of sugar and 30 calories in a 24 ounce bottle. Also, to be honest, nothing works like plain old water. Grango242 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Plain water is good. Slightly salted water can be better.86.219.36.166 (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)DT
 * SLATED water??? have you not hered the frase "whater water everywhere and not a drop to drnk?" it means you MUST NOT drink salt water. NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mud Flood (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The body needs electrolytes (such as salt) in order to maintain a salt-balance in the blood. If you're sweating a lot for a long time and you only drink plain water, there is a small risk of you suffering from water intoxication because you have to few electrolytes (this is a small risk for amateur marathoners, for instance). If you drink seawater, the opposite thing happens, you get too much electrolytes in the body. To get rid of all that extra salt, the body dehydrates itself. In other words, you die of thirst. However, if you have just the right amount of saline, that's great for drinking. In medicine, you use a saline solution of 0.9% NaCl, so that seems to be the sweet spot --Oskar 17:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ever been to an NFL training camp? A sign in the cafeteria says, "Remember to put two shakes of salt on all of your food." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be good to keep in mind, in this connection, that most people already get far too much salt in their diet, and what they lose in sweat is, more likely than not, a step to the good. Obviously this varies with individual circumstances and is just my personal, non-professional, understanding of the matter. --Trovatore (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Mineral water! That stuff is great! Get the kind that's high mineral content. I prefer if it's sparkling, particularly naturally sparkling (it doesn't make a difference but I figure it's less processed). It's great on it's own and doesn't take very long to get a taste for, but it's also good with a splash of juice, like cranberry or pomegranate. Actually, price dictates I don't drink that stuff all the time but you can get some juice and add maybe 1 part to 4 or 5 parts regular water and that really refreshing and it stretches your juice to where it's cheaper than fancy bottled stuff. You can even get condensed lemon or limeade and do the very same thing. One thing that sounds terrible but is actually worth a shot is soy sauce, 1-2 packets to 12 or so ounces hot water. Maybe cold water too. I've only tried hot but it was _good_. I'm thinking of finding things to blend it with but I haven't yet (I'm thinking of some kind of lemon or something). One last thing... and this isn't for good taste (I don't mind it but I fully recognize that it's awful for some people): pickles and pickle juice. This is more for if you're running around playing sports all day but it's a good way to get a lot of what you need without all the extra sugars. -LambaJan (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Training and eating
When I go training, particularly early in the morning, what is it best to eat before? --212.120.246.239 (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Banannas. they are high in posasissum and goodness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mud Flood (talk • contribs)


 * It depends on what type of training you're doing and how intense it is. This provides a guide for runners.-Wafulz (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wipro
who is the CEO of wipro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.2.236.143 (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Azim Premji. Fribbler (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Russia
I have read the article on Russia numerous times and have read the articles for as many particians thereof as I possibly can, from the Jewish Oblast to Siberia and many many others inbetween. However I still have an almost unnatural fasination with what is very very far from where I originally come from, however. What I still wish to know, is how did such a large county develop? how were all these minor regions brought under one Tsar? and why have they not disbanded over the centuries, they all have different cultures, different languages, and are vastly seperated by enormous areas, yet they all are Russian? How can Chukoltka honestly consider themselves to be even vagly related to Omsk and how can moscow all the way in the east maintain control over Kamchatka further more how can they be happy being ruled by Moscow? Please help me to understand this Thanks193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Zionist


 * Have you read Russian conquest of Siberia? While this article does not tell the complete story, it provides the essentials.  The Russians were able to conquer this vast area because they had European technologies, particularly weaponry, much more advanced than those of the various peoples who inhabited Siberia before the conquest.  Essentially, the Russian empire was brought under the control of the tsar by superior force of arms and the superior organization of a modernizing state.  The empire did not disband over the centuries because the Russian-dominated state was able to put down any challenges to its control, even after Communists took over and reconfigured those state structures.  The Russian state, like any other state, retained legitimacy for its ethnically Russian subjects largely through ideology.  During the tsarist period, the key ideologies were the image of the benevolent, paternalistic tsar and the religious sanction of the Orthodox church for the tsar's rule.  During the Communist period, the key ideology was that the benevolent, paternalistic Communist leadership was fulfilling Marx's prophecy and championing the interests of workers and peasants.  Most of the productive resources, and particularly the industrial infrastructure of the Russian state lay within areas with ethnic Russian majorities, and so the state maintained control of these resources.  This control allowed the state to put down any challenges to Russian control by the numerically much smaller ethnic minorities.  As you may know, some parts of the former Russian empire did in fact disband after the collapse of Communist control in 1991.  However, the post-Communist Russian state, which has increasingly relied for legitimacy on an ideology of the benevolent, paternalistic strongman (Yeltsin, Putin) as the nationalist defender and champion of the Russian people, has so far successfully put down the only serious challenge to its power (in Chechnya) by a subordinate ethnic group.  As before, the state controls organizational and material resources that allow it to overwhelm any challenge to its power by an ethnic minority, and the state's willingness to deploy those resources with deadly effect in Chechnya has probably discouraged other ethnic groups from attempting to break free of control by Moscow, even if they aren't happy about Moscow's control.  Marco polo (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been said many times than Russia managed to create an Empire but not a Nation—it was able to use military force to build up a gigantic landmass into a single major political entity, but it never managed to produce a feeling of "Russianness" to unite the various groups. Hence it is often considered a rather fragile arrangement, relying solely on the strength of an often aggressive state to hold the whole thing together. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Optimising gear raitios
What sort of things do you need to look at when optimising the gear ratios of a car for a particular race? --RMFan1 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this is frequently done in things like formula 1 and stock car racing. The general idea is that you can trade top speed for better acceleration at lower speeds.  So, if the track is short and/or twisty, and you know you won't go above a certain speed, they gear for better acceleration.  Given enough gears, of course, you don't need to make such tradeoffs.  I don't know if the limited number of gears tends to be due to rules or due to engineering constraints.  Friday (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also possible to optimize ratios for specific corners. If a circuit only has one very low speed hairpin then you can change the ratios so that they are optimal for that corner. If you tried to accelerate out of the corner in third and the car seemed to "bog down" because the rpms were too low or if you tried to accelerate out in second and had to shift very early, then you might want to make some adjustments to your gearing.
 * Similarly, you can set the highest gear to work best with the longest straightaway. You don't want to run up against the rev limiter at the end of the straightaway and you also might not want to have a lot of top speed left, depending on what the rest of the course is like. Recury (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

High-end clothing in the UK
Greetings,

In France, high-end clothing is sought from brands such as Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Vicomte Arthur, Cyrillus, Saint-James etc.

What are their British counterparts?

Thank you in advance,

--Anon 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lacoste and Ralph Lauren are internationally known. The others may be as well.  I don't know, I'm not that into fashion.  So, what are you asking?  Are you looking for brands that are in vogue and have a lot of popularity amongst certain demographics?  Or are you asking if those brands are simply available in the UK?  Dismas |(talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that the brands that I referred to, other than Lacoste and Ralph Lauren, are unknown outside of France, so I would like to know what their equivalents are in the UK, and which brands are renowned there for high-quality clothing.


 * --Anon 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Burberry is the only one I know off the top of my head. If you're desperate, you can have a look through the articles at Category:High fashion brands and try to pick out the British ones. Recury (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that list I recognise only Aquascutum and Pringle of Scotland. There is also Fred Perry (scroll down to see the fashion brand mentioned). But I think labels have a different place in UK culture than they do in French culture. In the UK the chav stereotype can easily become attached. This leads some people to avoid buying clothing with labels at all. Or they wonder why they would pay a premium when they could buy a similar item at Marks and Spencer. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answers.


 * --Anon 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

the rich jerk
what do you think about therichjerk.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.73.68 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that my Macafee Siteadvisor gives it a big red X, and "breached browser security" as the summary.... Fribbler (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At a glance it looks like a pretty typical get rich quick scheme. You pay the jerk money for the "plans" on how to get rich.  (Apparently, the plans include such sure-fire techniques as convincing other people to pay you for the "plans" on how to get rich!) See this article: The only thing new here is the attitude, otherwise sites like this are dime-a-dozen. APL (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think participating in the laughable scheme the site is peddling is going to make the participant feel very sad and stupid. (The "proof" section is very impressive, though! Nobody could ever fake that kind of solid and undeniable evidence.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks CD, I think this is just the very case where we need a user with official military grade disdain :-) Fribbler (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

staplers
why do some staples open outwards and others inwards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.72.103 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on how the plate in the stapler is placed. Ive been known for changing it and other students can't figure out what is going on :) --omnipotence407 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you click on the image to enlarge it, you can see the staple plate Omnipotence is talking about: it has two types of guide for bending the staple. It is currently set to bend staples outwards, but can be rotated to present the inwards-bending form. Gwinva (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I ask a follow up question? Is there an advantage to one or the other direction of bending the staple, perhaps under different circumstances?Artpainter (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is easier to remove the staple when it is bent outwards. People sometimes do it that way when they know they are going to have to take the staple out.  Plasticup  T / C  00:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a real reason, believe it or not...
 * Curl the points inward for a "permanent" staple; turn the plate around and push them outward for a much more easily removed and thus more temporary staple. --Danh, 67.40.169.42 (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But, of course, this brings up the further question, why would someone who only wants a temporary fastener use a staple at all when paper clips are designed specifically for that purpose ? This might explain why the outward bending staple setting is rarely used. StuRat (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The temporary staple is probably a bit more secure than a paper clip and less likely to lead to the pages becoming unordered through repeated removal of/reassembly with the paper clip. Me, I like binder clips.


 * Atlant (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A temporary fastener is needed when papers are passed from one person to another in the knowledge that they will need to be separated - and then, perhaps, re-stapled. (No need for a staple remover.) Or because what is stapled must be removed by the other person, i.e. a form attached to a letter. In which case it is courtesy not to hard staple.86.216.123.52 (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)DT
 * I thank those who have suggested that the outwardly pointing staples are easier to remove. That idea hadn't occurred to me. My feeling is that the difference in ease of removal is probably slight. Has anyone read a claim by a stapler company that the intended feature is as you describe it, or does anyone have any other source stating that as the purpose for the outwardly pointing staple?


 * The answer I thought I was going to hear was that the outwardly pointing staples were meant to be less likely to damage fragile varieties of paper. My reasoning is that the staple contacts a larger area of the paper with the outwardly pointing staple, than it does with the inwardly pointed one. Even that I would have found to be a bizarre explanation, but it was the only one that I could think of. Artpainter (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Our own article on staples recites the "easy to remove" meme, as does, for instance, ehow.com (to which I cannot link because that website is on our linkspam list - the articler is at /how_2265680_remove-staples.html). The following is OR: I've just stapled a circa 140gsm card with a couple of staples, one outwards & one inwards. I can now reveal that it was v.easy to remove the pinned staple, but the clinched staple is still embedded and I'm buggered if I'm going to risk an injury trying to get it out bare-handed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My wife uses a lightweight stapler in this mode to attach sewing fabric to patterns before sewing and cutting. It is quicker than hand-pinning but only works on coarse-weave fabric. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, staples come in a lot of varieties. Length of the staple varies, as well as the robustness or slenderness of the steel. (I'm sure some staples are not made of steel.) This would greatly affect how easily or difficultly staples are removed. Artpainter (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Will an article from a stapler manufacturer convince the Doubting Thomases of the use of "temporary staples"? If so, here's Swingline explaining it all for you:.

Atlant (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great. Thank you for that. Artpainter (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Seagull pet
Can I keep a seagull as a pet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.171.151 (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This link may help you! Fribbler (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, (may require login). Also, I have personally raised a baby gull to just beyond fledgling age. I could've probably kept her as a pet if I'd wanted to - but she started to become very 'assertive' and more interested in the outside world and the other gulls than she was in hanging around with me. It's against the law to keep wild-caught native birds as pets in many places though (I've never heard of anyone breeding gulls in captivity)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition, I just found this forum post, with pictures of someone's pet gull. Most of the 'pet' gulls I've heard about have been lame-but-otherwise-healthy birds (as a result of wing fractures that won't heal correctly) that are unable to return to the wild and have been returned to the person who first found them by the veterinarian (I'm not 100% sure if they're supposed to do that) as an alternative to euthanasia. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One more image I just found (unsure of the exact context). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My main concern would be are they house trainable? Richard Avery (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Many species of parrot can be house trained but I have no idea about the gulls. I certainly never tried with the gull I looked after (I noticed that she didn't like to shit in the basket where she slept) - she was in the garden most of the day anyway. FWIW, 'bird people' usually grow quite tolerant of bird poop in the house and on the clothing anyway... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for that KSB - I think. Richard Avery (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Obesity and genetics?
Why is it that some people, like myself, never seem to get fat no matter how much they eat, whereas some people seem to get fat from nothing? Is it caused by genetics? What physiological "feature" causes this? --antilivedT 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I "enjoy" the ability to eat whatever and never gain weight, while my brother gains weight by just looking at food. It seems to be a mix of genetics and metabolism. Fribbler (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Genetics plays its part. For example, individuals with certain allelic variants of MC4R and FTO  and LEPR are fatter than those without those alleles. There will be many more of these type of genes as yet undiscovered that, in combination, predispose people to obesity.
 * In terms of what physiological "feature" is involved. In the case of MC4R and LEPR, both are receptors found in the central nervous system. Their normal function is to limit/regulate food intake. What happens is when you are sated, the circulating levels of leptin and insulin bind receptors in the arcuate nucleus (including LEPR). Through a cascade of intermediate signaling molecules, melanocortin is produced and AGRP is suppressed. The melanocortin then binds to MC4R on the surface of hypothalamic neurons which, through and unknown mechanism, results in the reduction of food intake. When the MC4R or LEPR protein is non-functional, that mechanism no longer works and your body still thinks you are hungry so you continue eating. In extreme cases, when the gene is entirely non-functional, individuals will literally eat themselves to death. However, the mild sub-clinical variants appear to also have an effect on appetite. There are other genes (such as MC3R) which regulate the metabolism of the food already eaten. Variants in a gene like this, for example, could explain why some people never seem to get fat no matter how much they eat, while others can't seen to keep the weight off no matter how little they eat. Rockpock  e  t  01:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm interesting. I eat in big servings and my weight never seem to change much, so I guess it's my metabolism then. --antilivedT 06:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I loathe you with a burning passion. Just so you know :) --Oskar 01:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One can hardly blame one's weight on genetics if one sits around all day, does no exercise and eats high-fat high-sugar foods. Yes, there is probably a genetic disposition but it is not the only factor. I have a high metabolism because I do a lot of exercise. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 14:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those people with severe loss-of-function mutations in MC4R could do as much exercise as you and still be obese, since the mechanism of their action has little to do with the amount of calories burned by activity. However, as with all genes, the phenotype is a result of the genotype + the environment. If you change your environment (i.e. by exercising more), then you can ameliorate the genetic predisposition to some extent. Rockpock  e  t  20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)