Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 March 27

= March 27 =

books
whats a good book for someone who only reads books by jared diamond but has run out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothameans (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you always knew this day would come. Time for a different author. I don't know who wrote them, but I liked Digital Fortress, Life Expectancy, and Deception Point. Useight (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be Dan Brown that wrote Digital Fortress and Deception Point. Don't know about Life Expectancy as I've never heard of it.  Dismas |(talk) 00:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My word, it's like a literary salon in here, isn't it? Malcolm XIV (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should try Carl Sagan, he's about the same. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What did you like about Jared Diamond's books? The Evolutionary aspect? If that, then would you be interested in broad histories of human evolution or a gene-centric approach? Richard Dawkins' books (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, etc) may be of interest. Matt Ridley's books (The Red Queen, Genome, etc) are also quite good. I also like Steven Pinker's books (The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate).--droptone (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Dean Koontz was the author of Life Expectancy (if this is what you were talking about). -- Jamie  S93  13:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

gaelic or druidic pentabic rhyme
Need compare/contrast sources and examples from druidic period for rhyme written vs bard style retelling. Have been unsuccessful thus far. Any help would be appreciated.Jgaelaneeire (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You might have better luck on the Humanities or Languages desks. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Manual-to-Automatic Transmission Conversion
A long time ago, somebody told me it was possible to convert a vehicle with a manual transmission to an automatic transmission. Is this true? Thanks. Danthemankhan 03:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Possible, certainly. How cheap or easy depends on the vehicle - if it's an unsophisticated vehicle that was produced in both automatic and manual versions, it may be as simple as replacing the transmission and controls. FiggyBee (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I recall several years ago, NBA athlete Kobe Bryant bought a special Lamborghini Murcielago with manual transmission for his wife, but realized that she couldn't drive stick. He then had it converted into an automatic. Acceptable (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I believe as a general rule, the makers of most high-priced exotics will do a lot of custom work, as long as you're willing to pay (lots) for it.   Seems a bit odd to me tho- why not just teach her to drive stick instead of hacking up the car?  But, I suppose there's no accounting for taste. Friday (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Most modern high-end exotics offer a sequential manual as an option. Most of these transmissions offer an automatic mode and a manual mode, both of which do not require the operation of a clutch pedal and should not be that much of a jump from an automatic. Acceptable (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Running out of Steam
Are the Hollywood videos running out of steam? I recently saw I am Legend and I gave it one big, meh! Hannibal Rising was a big disappointment. What is Hollywood doing wrong?Cardinal Raven (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
 * Hollywood functions to make money. I Am Legend grossed $583,160,567 globally and had the highest opening in history for a film released in the month of December. In that instance, Hollywood did everything right. Rockpock  e  t  07:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When you go to a video store, you'll find a lot of movies from the 90's. What a great decade that was! Ditto for the 80's. Or 70's, 60's, 50's, ... all good. But for this decade? It's lucky if you see one or two good movies a year.
 * Do you see where the illusion comes from? Because this decade is happening now, day by leisurely day at a time, it seems like good new movies are coming out at very long intervals. While last decade's dozen great movies are right there on the self, no waiting necessary.
 * A look at IMDB's list of 250 top rated movies of all time shows that the number of top rated movies per decade is pretty constant. Weregerbil (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Omega Man was also based on I am Legend, and it wasn't really any better.
 * I think it's at least partially a selection issue. We only remember the good films. If you ask me to think of films from the 1940s I'll name "Citizen Kane", "Casablanca", and "The Maltese Falcon". An entire decade, reduced to three films. If you ask me to name films from this decade I can rattle off a nice long list.  But back in the 40s, people were going to the movies every week and seeing a different film each time. What happened to all those other films? I've always assumed they were just as forgettable as most of what we see today. APL (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume no longer, APL. The 1940s also gave us such timeless classics as The Philadelphia Story, Rebecca, The Man Who Came to Dinner, Double Indemnity, Now, Voyager, Brief Encounter, The Picture of Dorian Gray, The Seventh Veil, Great Expectations, The Razor's Edge, Hamlet and The Red Shoes.  And that's just from my own personal list of favourites.  I'm sure there are many others from that decade that people still hold dear.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I will concede that my knowledge of old films is incomplete. APL (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Old movies aren't my thing. I want to watch something new and different. Something completely unique and new. Not the same stories of police, drugies, street fighters, heroic men with swords (though 300 was pretty good, spies (James Bond Casino Royal were good as well), etc. I want something new, unique, and not the same old same old.Cardinal Raven (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * If you dismiss all "old" movies sight unseen just because they weren't made yesterday, you're going to miss out on a lot of great film (a lot of trash too, but that applies in any era). Great films being made today will be old one day, but their quality won't have deteriorated just because the viewer has aged.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't dismiss all "old" movies. Some of them I have watched. A couple of movies that still test time are John Carpenter's Thing and Coneheads. Those aren't that far back, but I do enjoy some silent films as well. I like the old Sherlock Holmes films. I like Mr. Hyde as well. I never dismiss them they just don't interest me sometimes.Cardinal Raven (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
 * So you're complaining that the quality of Hollywood movies is dropping, but old movies generally don't interest you? Maybe you just don't like movies... -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Threads, A new earthbound biological life form?
Approx 2 years ago on national New Zealand television, I watched a documentary style program called "Threads". It was American made and was about a new life form that had been discovered by slowing down the frames on video cameras after filming and you could see strange flying thread shaped creatures in the frames. The "Threads" as they called them, could not be seen with the naked human eye as they were too fast and semi transparent, and they also seemed to be intangible, as it appeared they could fly through solid objects. A portion of video clip on the documentary was on some cavers abseiling down a huge hole in the ground, (I think this video was filmed in South America somewhere), and later when they slowed the film down you could literally see lots of these "Threads" flying around in this hole and seamlessly passing through the cavers, themselves totally unaware of what was happening. I have tried to find any information on the internet by searching Google etc. but have not been able to find any reference to this lifeform or documentary. Is this real or fake?Mustangman6879 (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Was it approximately April 1, 2006? Sounds like the dust and other debris on a roll of film. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you mean Rods? Think outside the box 12:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question and link, that was awesome and I'm chilled with Mark Snow in my head now. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sounds like Rods. They're just how (normal) insects look when you slow down the film. A simple mistake, held on for dear life by those who desperately "want to believe" and those know better but like the attention it brings. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, that rods documentary actually had a short segment where someone debunked it with a video of bees flying around the screen, and then they promptly cut to a 'believer' who stated that it's not the same (without elaborating), and then more nonsense followed. Unless I'm thinking of Is It Real? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Signing board for disabled people
I recently saw a wheelchair user who was obviously severely physically disabled. He appeared to be communicating with his carer by means of what looked like a clear plastic board with letters, words and symbols on it, which she was holding up to him. How are these devices used - does the person use his eyes to "point" to the word required? --Richardrj talkemail 10:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * >.> []? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [] [] [] [] buttons?? D\=&lt; (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are exactly right Richardrj see here for an example. It's also used by people who have had strokes or have other communication difficulties, but often you are unlucky enough to have these go hand in hand with a physical disability. Children with Autism for example wouldn't really use a board like this, they would perhaps have a little book of pictures as they can point or hand them out.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that's a rather simple one, here is a more complex one with instructions in its use.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  12:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A mouth stick is sometimes used (as a pointing device).

Atlant (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Human History
I saw on ITV news yesterday that they had discovered human remains that are over 1.5 million years old, I would like to read more about this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This was in Atapuerca. For more details see here and here.  --Richardrj talkemail 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "Dial 1 for __, dial 2 for __" called?
What is the automated phone message system called? -- Zanimum (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It took a little looking, but I found Interactive voice response, linked to from call center. Friday (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I could have gotten that one quickly, but I was busy working, oddly enough, on IVR programming. Our article could sure use a lot of work.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I call it something much different. And while I know that Wikipedia is not censored, I think I'll stop right there.


 * Atlant (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "You have selected "regicide". If you know the name of the king or queen being murdered, press 1 now." 206.252.74.48 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I love these small quote responses, especially when I get them, as was the case with both the last one I saw ("the only winning move is not to play") and this one. Thanks! Should have linked to the episode though. Jørgen (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There really should be different terms for "press 1 for __, press 2 for __" systems on the one hand and "move into a quieter room and speak the name of the department you want, meaning the name that we call it by, in the same accent we use" systems on the other, though. Apparently IVR includes both; are there specific (non-censorable) terms for the two kinds? --Anonymous, 01:38 UTC, March 28, 2008.


 * I have seen one document that refers to "integrated voice recognition (IVR) and touch-tone features". Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 07:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

How Buena Vista County, Virginia voted in the 1896 election
I am trying to find out how Buena Vista County, Virginia voted in the 1896 election, but The only thing I could find was a low res county by county picture (from the election of 1896 page), which isn't good enough to show Buena Vista County, since it is so small, and since I can't find any information on Buena Vista County, VA I am running into dead ends (like it's page), mostly because of the other Buena Vista County, Iowa. ANewsom (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find someone at a subscribing institution to help, (at ICPSR) should have your answers. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's Buena Vista, Virginia; it's actually an independent city, rather than a county (Virginia is weird that way.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was able to get the data from that page but I have no clue how to access it. It gave me a large .txt file (that is just gibberish in a text editor) and smaller .sas and .sps files.  I can send them to you if this is something you can work with. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll take what I can get, sure I'll try.ANewsom (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal age for consensual sex (was "Headline text")
I heard recently that the legal age for consensual sex was 16 in the United Kingdom of England. Is this true? It seems awfully young, considering the age is 21 where I am from. Also, as a side note, what is the youngest age for sex in the world? Is England the youngest? Thank you for you time is answering my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madox5 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom of England? It might be wise for you to have a little look at British Isles (terminology). Malcolm XIV (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes this is true, and yes it is regarded as being very young even by the BritishJonM267 (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]
 * I wouldn't say that most people here in the UK think it's "very young". No doubt a few do, but to me it seems perfectly normal. As for younger, the age of consent in Spain is apparently 13, and in the Netherlands it's 12 as long as the other person is no more than four years older. A quick scan through Ages of consent in Europe suggests that the modal age is 14. No wonder 16 doesn't seem young here :-) 81.187.153.190 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article "Ages of consent in North America" is of interest here. It mentions Mexico's 12 as "one of the lowest in the world". My home state of New Jersey has some old laws on the books, among which, apparently, is one that allows sex with no minimum age at all under certain circumstances. Also see "statutory rape". --Milkbreath (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How old are those law books? Neal (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC).


 * I don't know, but they've been writing them here for a good long time now, and they hardly ever erase any. According to our article, the law says that a no-more-than-four-year age difference makes sex OK. A 14-year-old could have sex with a ten-year-old. I don't remember ever hearing about any such thing actually happening here in modern times, and I would guess that the authorities would make their presence felt in such a case, law or no law. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Coming back to the UK; don't forget that Scotland has long held consensual sex - and marriage - to be legal at 16 - hence the rush of youngsters down the ages from England bent on defying their objecting parents' denial of their wish to marry - with most of them aiming for Gretna Green - the first Scottish town they came to on crossing the English/Scottish border - where they were traditionally married across the blacksmith's forge - without realising that they could in fact have been married anywhere in Scotland by a licensed marriage registrar, religious minister or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.59 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's 14 in Canada (sort of...and it's a minor controversy at the moment). Adam Bishop (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 16 has been the age of consent for sex for girls for generations. The difference is that youngsters now reach puberty somewhat earlier than decades ago.  This means that there are a lot of teenagers having sex under age - up to a quarter of them, according to this Guardian article/opinion piece about the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles: . BrainyBabe (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh really? I certainly find that hard to believe. A couple decades is too short, considering the thousands of years humans have been on the planet. Neal (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Not too hard to believe if it's caused by hormones we've just started adding to milk in the last few decades. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I did not know about that. Maybe I'll research into that a bit. Neal (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC).


 * It's not even hormones that are at fault -- it's simply a matter of better nutrition and health care. That's also why the average adult height has gone up a foot in the past century. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I used to know a couple, where the girl was 14 when they were married in Maryland. The age of consent may be lower if it's for marriage, or else the law has changed, since our article now says age of consent in Maryland is 16.   Corvus cornix  talk  17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The site that always used to have the info on this was http://www.ageofconsent.com/ Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Item in Theodore Roosevelt article
In reading the article on Theodore Roosevelt, I came across this:

The New York World translated the Thanksgiving Day proclamation: >When nearly three centuries ago, the first settlers came to the country which has become this great republic, that confronted not only hardship and privashun, but terrible risk of their lives. . . . The custom has now become national and hallowed by immemorial usage."

Is there a cite for this? I looked briefly in the New York World microfilm at the Library of Congress and did not find it, but did not sit and search for hours.

Is there any way to find out when this was printed in the New York World?

I also noticed that the spellings have changed since I first saw it. What is going on here?

Henry Zecher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzecher48 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could be vandalism, you can revert it to the previous acceptable state and warn the user/IP on their talk page found through the article's history tab. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The spelling changed because someone "corrected" it. But the real issue is that the New York World quote is an example of journalistic satire, not something that TR actually wrote.  For details, see: Talk:Theodore Roosevelt.--Pharos (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)