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

= May 14 =

Lexington, Kentucky and suburbs
Does Lexington, KY have suburbs? Heegoop, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does! Ericthebrainiac (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A city of this size will naturally have suburbs, is it that you wish to know what they are; what is the nature of the suburbs etc.? Fribbler (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Lexington has suburbs, what are some of them? Heegoop, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lexington merged with Fayette County in 1974. Fayette County includes almost the entirety of the Lexington urbanized area. So Lexington has no suburban municipalities like most American cities of its size do. Looking at aerial photos, it appears parts of surrounding counties have some exurban areas, and cities in nearby counties no doubt serve largely as bedroom communities for Lexington workers. But if any city of its size can be said to have "no suburbs" (using the American definition of "suburb"), Lexington might be it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, the american definition of suburb would have got me. It seems more "official" than the informal definition we would have (i.e. anything smaller and nearby that people would go from to shop, work etc. in the larger town). Fribbler (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The difference is that the less densely populated areas around a city center may be separate legal towns or may be part of the same legal entity as the population center. Los Angeles or London are both excellent examples of the first case, with the actually "city" of Los Angeles or London being quite small, but surrounded by dozens of suburbs, while Lexington, Kentucky may be a good example of the other case.  It may also be possible to have a city with no moderately populated surrounding area, if political or geographic reasons make that impossible.  National boundaries don't always have this effect, however, as suburbs can exist in one country for a city in another, provided that the border is relatively open.  For example, Windsor, Ontario, Canada can be said to be a suburb of Detroit, Michigan, United States.  Singapore, being a small island, may be an example of geographic limitations, where there are no suburbs because the city itself takes up the entire island.  For another example, a city surrounded by a national park will sometimes lack suburbs, if it's illegal to build there.  StuRat (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not characterize Los Angeles as being geographically small; see List of United States cities by area. It is enormous compared to the "downtown" region, and contains large areas, such as the San Fernando Valley, which could be considered suburban (single family homes and low-rise apartments, big box stores, etc.).  -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you only include the incorporated city of Los Angeles, it's under 500 square miles, while the entire urban area is closer to 1700 square miles, or over 3 times bigger. I suppose, in that sense, the city is only small when compared to the total area. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't buy it. New York City has a urban:city area ratio of 7:1, and Chicago is almost 9:1.  If you look at Washington Metropolitan Area, the ratio looks huge.  I don't see how Los Angeles is a small city, by this or any other reasonable metric.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also an urban growth boundary for Lexington that limits suburban sprawl to the east, west and north, where most of the historic horse farms are located at. To the south are "replaceable" tobacco farms, and where the soil qualities are typically poorer -- i.e. not as calcium enriched. The counties surrounding Lexington are Woodford Co., Scott Co. and Clark Co. that have strict zoning policies; Jessamine Co. and Madison Co. have more lax, and if you look at an aerial, you can see Jessamine County's sprawl begin just south of the Fayette County border (much worse now than in the aerials, which were taken ~2001). seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  12:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's Best
Why are we always searching for the newest, latest, the best? Why are we never happy with what we have? Why are we never satisfied as a human being? Why aren't we happy with what we have?

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
 * To quote George Mallory on why he wanted to climb mount everest: "Because it's there". People like to better what's been done in every way. I wonder what would have happened if we hadn't that drive?! Fribbler (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Advertisers have known this for a long time. Ads that scream "It's NEW!!!" attract people to at least try the new product purely because of its newness, even if they're totally satisfied with their current product.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Evolutionary, my dear Watson Raven. If we were satisfied with what we had, we'd be roaming the African veldt, eating bugs and carrion. There'd be no Wikipedia (shudder). P.S. There's some question whether Mallory said that. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And, while wanting more, bigger, better things has led to improvements in our standard of living (life expectancy, for example), it may ultimately be our downfall, with nuclear and biological weapons now at our disposal, as well as potential ecological disaster as our population and lifestyles may lead to our extinction. However, "being satisfied with less" is a hard sell in Western culture.  One sign of this is the greatly reduced number of members in religious orders which require vows of poverty. StuRat (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Long-term document storage
Let’s say a person has a bunch of documents they would like to be released only after their death. Where is the best place to put them? Some kind of safe deposit box I would assume, but I think it’s unlikely that the local Bank of America branch will still be there in 60 years or whatever. Also, can a person pay for a safe deposit box for x number of years in advance, and can they then specify that the contents be transferred to the nearest living relative or some institution? --S.dedalus (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You could deposit them with your lawyer and pay them a retainer as executors of your will. (Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. Talk to your lawyer.)--Lisa4edit (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And indeed it could not be legal advice since I said “a person.” This is entirely hypothetical. What happens if the lawyer dies before the hypothetical client does? --S.dedalus (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Select a lawyer who is part of a practice which looks like it would survive the death of one of the partners. Why do you think the bank will be gone in 60 years? Banks in my town have been been around for longer than that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They were worried that their local branch may no longer be there or may have been bought out by another bank. While either is quite possible, so long as the bill for the safe-deposit box is paid, I'm sure they would relocate the contents to a new box at their new branch. StuRat (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Law-firms traditionally hold third party funds and documents. They have arrangements for passing on that liability to others in case they may no longer be able to meet that obligation.    Banks usually have a term limit on how long they let you rent a safety deposit box for.  That, however is at the discretion of the bank or even the local branch manager. The laws that are affected are quite different.  With the bank you'd have a contract, so contract law applies.  The law-firm would fall under several professional and inheritance laws.  Apart from being in danger of a "breach of contract" suit as would apply for a bank the law-firm would risk losing their license and get sued under whatever book can get thrown at them for not serving as executor for that will.  But if you want a "correct" answer you'd have to ask a lawyer. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the UK used to have a government office that held wills, I hear it doesnt exist anymore worse luck. But if you could find such an office in another country, you could have the document with the will.Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Non Surgery Tumour Removal
I had read an article I found a while back on the Internet but can't seem to find it now about using lasers to kill tumours in the breast. I can only find an article dated in 1999 when they were just rolling this procedure out and I know many improvements have happened since- does anybody know anything about these techniques or what the latest news on them is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.83.133 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Using lasers to remove tumors inside the body will necessarily require some form of surgery, probably an endoscopic procedure. There is a lot of information available if you google laser+tumor+removal.  If you're more interested in procedures that are completely non-surgical, you may want to ask your doctor about treatments that will kill tumors with radiation or chemicals, depriving the tumor of blood supply, or taking oral medications that might disolve the tumor.  Tumors that are on the surface of the skin can also be frozen or cauterized.  As always, your doctor should be able to provide you with a complete list of options and is likely to regulary read the sorts of publications that would cover the latest advances in different techniques.  152.16.59.190 (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not lasers, but it does have a cool-sounding name: gamma knife. --Sean 13:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Plane Crash
If a plane crahes on the American-Candian border line, where are the dead bodies buried? On American soil or Candian soil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.253.108 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved this into another section; I'm assuming it has nothing to do with the above question. The bodies can be buried in any country the next of kin wants them. You don't have to be buried in the country you die in. If the person had no next of kin, where they would be buried would probably depend on which side of the plane they were on. That is unless the person was paper thin and standing exactly on the 49th parallel. Then there would be a problem. Paragon12321 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem might fall to the International Boundary Commission for which, surprisingly, we don't appear to have an article. But we do have Treaty of Washington (1871).


 * Atlant (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has a section in this article. Fribbler (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, this question is often asked as a riddle, except asking, 'Where are the survivors buried?', thus trying to trick the answerer into confusing the survivors for the casualties. Dforest (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that if you're getting pedantic, not all casualties should be buried. A casualty is anyone injured, so technically a survivor could be a casualty. That said, common usage is to equate casualties with deaths. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And even dead, they may be cremated........ Fribbler (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why fire is used as a classical element other then magma??
Why fire is and was used as a classical element other then magma??

Fire is the heat and light energy released during a chemical reaction, its not like water, wind and earth that is something found in the nature, well you can say that some of those or all of those are made with a reaction, but those 3 you can find normaly on the nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.63.139 (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fire is far more common than magma, and your analysis assumes an understanding of fire that did not exist when the notions of the four classical elements were prevalent. It's like saying "why did prehistoric people believe the Earth was flat when pictures from the Apollo spacecraft clearly show it to be round?" &mdash; Lomn 04:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * note that other than magma, lightning strikes can be a source of fire.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes sense if you think of the classical elements as states of matter (solid, liquid, gas, "plasma"). Magma doesn't look like a new element, it looks like a mixture of earth and water (and fire). Fire isn't actually a plasma (not ordinary wood fires, anyway) and I don't see how the ancients could have recognized a plasma if they saw one; I assume they distinguished fire because it moved upward and/or because it produced its own light. If our classical element article is to be believed, the same four-element classification was invented independently in several cultures. -- BenRG (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As well as alien cultures. Dismas |(talk) 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Until rather recently in history -- a few centuries or so -- everyday human life was intimately involved with and vitally dependent on fire, both small ones like hearth fires, and large ones like landscape fires (to, eg, create rough pasture, etc). Given the extreme importance of fire to human life going back perhaps a million years, and fire's strikingly unusual behavior and sheer power, it would seem odd to me if it was not considered "elemental". Pfly (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

During emergency landing, why blow air in life jacket only after getting out of airplane?
Before takeoff, airline (e.g. Jet Airways, India) crew instructs passengers about how to use life jackets in case of emergency. They specifically instruct not to blow life jacket while inside airplane, and expect passengers to open it only at the emergency exit door or after getting out of plane. Knowing that passengers will be in panic, they may struggle or fail to blow jackets at the last moment and suffer more injury, is it not better for them to be ready with blown up jacket while plane is preparing to land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.237.147 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to a TV show whose title escapes me, if you inflate your life jacket in the cabin, its buoyancy may push you up to the ceiling when the water enters the plane, making it difficult or impossible for you to get out. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mayday (TV series) episode for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961? --antilivedT 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That was the one. Kudos to you, antilived. Clarityfiend (talk)


 * Some airlines offer classes for people scared of flying. Try one of those and see what it is like walking with an inflated vest.  It would make it very hard for most people to maneuver through the aisles to the cabin door. Lisa4edit (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ...particularly if the plane is at an angle (as it well may be), so the aisle may not be level, and if there are, say, a hundred other people who have also inflated their vests struggling to get out of the place. It'll just hinder movement in already difficult circumstances. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the previous answers. Also, there may only be a few minutes before the plane sinks, so getting everyone out before that happens is the priority for the crew, not staying inside while working on getting the vests inflated. StuRat (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not yet noted is that emergency exits, particularly those over the wings, can be cramped affairs. Having an inflated life vest within the cabin can hinder your ability to fit out the exit. &mdash; Lomn 14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another obvious reason may be that life vests may be cut or punctured by damaged equipment inside the plane. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I recently flew on Air Pacific and they instructed us to half-inflate our life-jackets prior to exit (by pulling one of the toggles). This was the first time I had heard this variation. Doe anyone know if this is a new initiative or just a quirk of that particular airline? Rockpock  e  t  06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that inflated life-jackets may hinder movement inside and exit from inside the aircraft after it has ditched into water is mistaken. Experience has shown that when a plane crashes into water there is plenty of space for everyone to get out of the plane through the very large holes that appear in the fuselage. The real issue is whether a life jacket has ever saved anyone's life after a commercial jet liner has ditched into water. Richard Avery (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any statistics about how many times airline crew have announced emergency, and how many of them actually resulted in emergency exits? Are blown jackets reusable? If not, it will be loss for airline? Just kidding :-) I am sure, safety takes precedence over cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.237.147 (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Check this out : Water_landing.  Especially the blurb on Ethiopian Flight 961.  APL (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sten gun
I was reading about the Sten gun and was doing some thinking. According to Eric Bergerud in his book on the Pacific War, Touched by Fire, Thompson submachine guns were issued to a small group of soldiers, notably mechanized infantry. American officers carried pistols and some carried M1 carbine. Regarding the Sten gun, were they issued to NCO's like the MP40 or to officers? Did the British Army issue submachine guns like the Americans or like the Germans? (I noticed that I have a toy soldier showing a soldier, presumably an officer, carrying a Sten.) --Blue387 (talk) 04:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The British army has been, and is still, late in taking up automatic weapons. During WWII the issue didn't come up until the enemy showed how effective sub-machine guns were. The the Sten was devised in a hurry. A very cheap weapon to make it was little more than a pipe with a spring loaded firing pin. Notoriously easy to let off a round in error. Standard issue was 2 Stens to a platoon of 10 at the end of WWII. Having used one I can say that I felt safer with a Lee Enfield rifle !86.209.28.101 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)DT

Textbook repair
I have to return a textbook on thursday, but the cover is no longer attached to the rest of the book. We tried gorilla glue, but that didn't work. I'm thinking rubber cement might work, but I'm not sure. 71.218.24.22 (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Bookbinding will hold clues. You're in a rush, so here's the layman's clue.  Take an old piece of sheet, pillowcase or dishtowel (not the terry-cloth type, the woven style). Cut out a piece that is about a quarter of an inch shorter than the long measure of your bookend. Cut it so that it's width will cover half the front and back pages when you wrap it around the book centered.  Take two sheets of big paper (has to measure at least twice as wide and as tall as your book, sturdy, gift-wrap's too flimsy!) Cut each sheet to be as tall as the inside of your book and twice as wide as the first (or last) page.  Fold each of these sheets in the middle.  Glue up your cloth and wrap it around your inside book centered along the spine. Glue up the book cover inside and the top page of the inside book. Glue up the outside (front and back but not inside) of one folded sheet and insert it between your book cover and the top of the inside book. (So that will open as the first page of the book.)  Glue up the inside back of the book cover and the other sheet. Insert the glued up sheet between the back cover and the back of the insert. Close the book and insert it under a pile of other books for pressure.  That should do it, at least till you'll return it.  Lisa4edit (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is a library book, most libraries prefer to use their own repair departments. You could just return the book, apologize for the damage, and let the library repair it, accepting responsibility for any charges. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

sufism
can anyone tell me where can i find some material about

Criticisms on sufism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, just about any ultraconservative Islamic writer or thinker should give you plenty of criticisms on Sufism. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Or from the other angle David Frawley criticises Sufis for not taling a liberal enough stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Chris (talk • contribs) 06:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * wikipedia Sufism --71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What type of plane might this be
36 foot  assault  glider  armed  with  an  MG15  and  two  MG 34s? If you  do  know  the  answer  could  you  please  post  its  full  name  here  and  not  its  nickname. If you  only  know  the  nickname,  thats  cool  too  and  thanks  for  your  help


 * Does our list here do you any good? 213.161.190.228 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DAYS OF BIRTHS
—Do births in the U.K. currently (and in recent decades)spread more-or-less evenly over the 7 days of the week, or are they more prevalent on certain days (perhaps due to interventions and other medical procedures)?ANTONIATZI (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)ANTONIATZI
 * I have heard they are less common at the weekend, for the reasons you give, but I haven't got a source for that at the moment. Algebraist 08:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a quick trawl around and found this, about a Dutch study, and this one , which links to an article citing studies in Switzerland and Germany. Couldn't find a specifically UK one - most of the primary sources are in subscription-only journals - but the evidence does seem to point to weekday births driven by medical convenience, as suspected.
 * There was also this which is absolutely fascinating: apparently the same effect is also seen around the dates of medical conferences, providing further evidence that medical professionals' commitments may be driving the phenomenon.  --  Ka renjc 19:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Composite images
Are there any good composite images of Summer Glau naked? Could someone provide some links. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lop lop 7 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, most people find Google adequate for such searches. And people who persist in asking this sort of question on our Reference Desks sometimes find themselves admonished by Wikipedia's administrators (hint, hint).


 * Atlant (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The desire for the image is going to always be more enticing than the image itself, which will look like yet another naked human form, interchangeable with oh-so-many others—that's the paradox of pornography. You're better off wanting without having. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?
Why are there so many questions about Avril Lavigne on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seven seven and eleven (talk • contribs) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're being added by a troll who finds it amusing. We live in hope said troll will grow up. And who knows; it could be you. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wooden Coffee Stick Stirrers
Why do cafe's offer a wooden stick to stir coffee?

A number of reasons come to mind:

To reduce cost - Then why do they offer you a metallic spoon with Tea instead?

Eco friendly - Plastic can be recycled now also, so why offer a tall thin wooden stick?

Tall coffee cups - Understandably a long stick will work when stirring a long drink, more than the regular tea spoon, but why a flat ended stick?

Stains - Coffee stains spoons...but so does Tea (if not more).

So:

Has it derived originally from the taste of coffee, and trying to prevent any alteration in the taste possibly made by a metallic spoon? If so, why don't the spoons alter the taste of Teas?

Is it just another conformity that we have adapted to? If not, then what is the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.233.171 (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, plastic can be recycled but so can trees. Dismas |(talk) 10:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The flat end will help to stir it, in that the more coffee you can get moving quickly, the more stirring action you will get. It will also help to pick up any sugar or other particles on the bottom.  Some metals can alter the taste, particularly silver.  However, stainless steel shouldn't (unless they left detergent on it from the last wash).  As for the cost of stirrers, it's a compromise between wanting to keep costs low (disposable stirrers) and wanting to satisfy customers (nice spoons).  Spoons do have the additional risk of being improperly cleaned and/or having water spots on them, though.  Those vendors which provide metal spoons will also want them back, so they can't give you those for take-out.  Wood also has the property of being a good thermal insulator (as is plastic).  Metal, however, is a thermal conductor, so spoons will get hot and cool the beverage while wood will not. StuRat (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The wooden stirrer isn't as effective as a teaspoon at capturing the tea bag and "wringing it out" with the tea bag's string. That's probably why a teaspoon may still be offered with tea. Also, McDonald's restaurants once offered small plastic spoon-shaped stirrers but got caught up in embarrasing publicity when their stirrers became popular among the cocaine-abusing crowd. I think this discouraged (at least in America) the further distribution of small spoon-shaped objects.


 * Atlant (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The obvious answer is that people who drink tea would never, ever steal the spoon; whereas those who drink coffee ... well, the conclusion suggests itself, doesn't it. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now there is a man who knows the good things in life! *Hugs mug of English breakfast type brew* SaundersW (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Human skull
Is it illegal to be in possession of a real human skull? Would displaying it on your mantelpiece also be illegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terror toad (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * IANAL and this is not legal advice, and this may depend on jurisdiction, but I don't see why it should be. Certainly museums and such own them. Algebraist 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of us (with the possible exception of the AL trollOPs) are in possession of a real human skull. I suspect that NOT having one would be the more likely cause for legal proceedings.  Displaying it on the mantle piece would necessitate the wearing of fire proof underwear.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This will obviously vary from one legal jurisdiction to another, but in many places they use a serial number attached to each skull, tied in to a database, to establish that the skull was legally obtained (as opposed to being the skull of someone who pissed you off). Some jurisdictions also restrict owenership to those with a "valid need", like medical schools and museums. StuRat (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I should think the age would be a factor too.Having a 15th century skull sitting around probably wouldn't interest the authorities(the archaeologists might want you to put it in a museum or something similar),if the skull was a couple of weeks old,they'd want to know whose it was and how you came to have it Lemon martini (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you can't determine the age by simple examination, it requires lab tests like carbon dating. Therefore some form of "certification" is needed to provide the age info more readily.  Police often first get called in when a skeleton is found, only to refer it to archealogists once it is determined to be ancient. StuRat (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But there are some obvious clues as to age that may exist in a given skull. For example a healed trepanation injury would suggest substantial age whereas an unhealed .38 Caliber bullet hole might suggest that the skull isn't quite as old.


 * Atlant (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say those are obvious clues. Telling a bullet hole from another type of hole may require some expertise in forensic meds. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not illegal in most US states to buy, possess, or display a human skull. There even are online places to buy them, like the amazing Bone Room in Berkeley, California, which has a wide collection of all sorts of bones and skeletons, including human skulls. They have a nice FAQ on the legality of owning human bones in the US. (In the Bone Room's store, there are actually little bottles full of human finger bones, only a dollar apiece or so! It's like a witches' store of yore—check it out if you are even in the area, its one-of-a-kind amazing!) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While walking on the skeleton coast in namibia i found a skull, took it to the authorities who did not seem to care much, i took it to a doctor friend who said it was only a few years old and that the discoloration and crack on the one side was the cause of death and that the discoloration was blood. but i had taken it to the authorities and they did not care so i kept it for many years. alas i dont know where it is now, i must have miss placed it over the tears. just for your info/interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.34.51 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, you lost your head?


 * Atlant (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He he! Good one Atlant Terror toad (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only legal if that skull is wearing a mask. Acceptable (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or is pink with crossbones. Emac1 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not this again... --WikiSlasher (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Soft drink shouldn't be banned from schools
What are some points for having soft drink at schools and shouldn't be banned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.166.206 (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The only argument in favor of selling soft drinks at school is that the profits from vending machines provide useful money for schools. The argument against selling soft drinks is that soft drinks not only have no nutritional value, but are harmful to the health, and children are not always good at choosing what is healthy for them instead of what is sweet; making sure children are eating healthily is the responsibility of parents (and by extension, schools), since many children aren't yet able to make the right choices for themselves. The argument in favor of selling soft drinks at school only works if your listener agrees that making money is a higher priority than children's health. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The argument is that the money made from the sales can benefit school programs and that this outweighs the negatives. However, I'd say the benefits only appear to outweigh the costs because the good part is immediately apparent, while the consequences are long-term, like bad eating habits leading to obesity, tooth decay, diabetes, and shortened life expectancy.  Soda companies will often provide millions of dollars to schools in exchange for placing vending machines.  They know they will eventually get the money back if they can hook kids on their products for life, when they are young and more vulnerable to advertising ("everyone's doing it ?  Then I'd better do it, too !").   StuRat (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) There IS nutritional value from soft-drinks. They are not unhealthy consumed in part of a healthy diet. They might not provide nutrients that you would otherwise go without, but that doesn't mean they don't provide them. 2) The biggest factor is a question of 'freedom' - are children allowed to make their own decisions about whether or not to drink fizzy-drinks, or should we protect them from the potential harm? I say educate and set-free, but others do not. 3) The above note school-income reasoning 4) It could be argued (if not hugely successfully) that getting children used to advertising/mass-marketing helps them become more immune/used to it and gives them better ability to deal with it when they encounter it in the future. Personally I find people are ridiculously over the top about things like this. There was a great special-report in the Economist a couple of years ago about this very question, might be worth searching their website to see if it is available to view for free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha... Drink Coke or Die! Anyway, good show of trying to come up with good reasons, though, as is quite evident, they are rather weak. Even most soft drink suppliers know that and are happy enough to sell bottled water and fruit juice instead. And even fried lard is healthy when consumed as part of a "healthy diet", but that's not really what people mean by "healthy". (And last time I checked, in the US, children are not legally allowed to make their own decisions, because it is recognized that the human brain is quite poor at decision-making when in the throes of development and puberty.) --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the statement, "There IS nutritional value from soft-drinks. They are not unhealthy consumed in part of a healthy diet:" I happen to be drinking a Diet Pepsi right now, so I turned the bottle over to look at the nutrition information.  The only nutrient it contains, according to that, is 25 milligrams of sodium.  The label says, "Not a significant source of other nutrients." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well a 250ml serving of normal coca-cola contains 29% of your GDA sugars and 5% calories (http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/yourhealth/whats_in_our_drinks/) - if you get your 29% from this and your 71% elsewhere it forms a part of your nutritionally balanced diet (sugars wise at least). If it contains 'no nutrients' then what is the problem? If it contains nothing of nutritional value what DOES it contain that is 'bad' for you? The problem with fizzy-drinks is rarely a lack of nutritional value, but rather too much - 29% sugars in 250mls means you don't get much cola to your GDA of sugars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What does it contain that's bad for you? High-fructose corn syrup, at least in most non-diet versions in the US.  In my opinion, that stuff is evil.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, many citrus-flavored soft drinks, such as Mountain Dew, contain BVO, which may have undesired health affects.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And see also Phosphoric acid. BTW, most people eating a modern Western diet don't have trouble getting "enough" sugar&mdash;they consume too much.  So you should think of the guideline as a daily maximum, not a minimum to be achieved.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of which are legally allowed by the Food-safety authorities. All of which are readily available for consumption outside of school hours. Fizzy-drinks are not unhealthy when consumed within a balanced diet. As I noted (not signed on as at work) the problem with fizzy-drinks is not lack of nutrients but over abundance of it. Where is the line drawn? How about banning the bringing in of fizzy drinks? How about regimental meals prescribed by government? The question of 'acceptable' depends on where you fall in the fight to balance the desire to allow people (of all ages) to do as they wish with their lives and the desire to ensure that children are not subject to things that could, in the wrong dosage, cause harm to them. I am firmly in the 'let people decide how much food they consume" camp (and yes I acknowledge potential passed on costs through healthcare/etc. etc. etc.) ny156uk (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically; sugar, sodium, fats, cholesterol, and any "food" or beverage with calories contain "nutrients". However, there is no difficulty in a Western diet with getting plenty of those.  The difficulty is in keeping from getting too much of those and getting enough vitamins and minerals (other than sodium).  So, foods and drinks which only contain those "nutrients" we get far too much of in our diet and lack those nutrients which are perpetually absent in our diets are unhealthy and considered "junk food".  If you had a diet of nothing but plain broccoli, then perhaps an occasional soda (along with a cheeseburger and fries) might improve your diet, but that's simply not a problem Western nations face.  StuRat (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See also empty calories Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the age of the student. A 17-year-old is different than a 5-year-old. I think the case could be made that a high schooler should be able to make his/her own decisions on something as basic as what to drink at lunch. If a simple can of Coke provides a bit of relief from the oppressive nature of high school, perhaps we should allow students this one indulgence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the burden of proof is on the side that wants it banned, by default it should be allowed because banning it is a restriction on the freedom of the soda companies to sell and the children to buy. In this case I think there is a fairly good argument, although I think it should ultimately be the decision of the parents of the children at each individual school. If parents think its ok for their kids to have access to soda, what right does the school have to make that decision for them? Mad031683 (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A school is a school, not a bazaar. There is no inherent freedom of any party to engage in commerce there.  You might also like to buy clothing, video games, and pet iguanas, but that doesn't mean that the school has an obligation to provide vendors of those goods.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, but they are going to sell food and drinks, and there has to be a compelling reason for excluding one vendor and allowing another. Mad031683 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I think the healthfulness of the meals provided is an excellent criterion.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that, I just believe it should be up to the parents to decide ideally. I just wonder where the line gets drawn, no more pizza days or red meat next? I think its the word banning I have a problem with, if they just stop providing it I'm not bothered. Mad031683 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be for improving the food offerings, as well. They shouldn't sell any fried foods, for example.  Instead of tater tots and french fries, offer baked or mashed potatoes.  Red meat is OK in moderation.  An occasional hamburger is fine if it has a whole wheat bun and tomato and lettuce on it, too.  A veggie pizza is a reasonable compromise between health and taste.  And always include some green veggies on the plate, too, with a mixed fruit cup for desert.  StuRat (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are arguing in favor of soft drinks at school, and you are a teenager, it might be useful to consider the possibility that you are an example of someone who is not yet developmentally able to make the decision to eat healthy food instead of sweet/fatty/salty junk food, and thus you may be someone who still needs adult control over your eating from your parents and your school. Many teens, without such control, would eat nothing but candy, pizza, and cheeseburgers, and would become ill while strenuously denying that their diet was related to their bad mood, poor grades, and blotchy skin. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, they wouldn't be excluding any particular vendor, just some products. From our article on The Coca-Cola Company:


 * During the 1990s, the company responded to the growing consumer interest in healthy beverages by introducing several new non-carbonated beverage brands. These included Minute Maid Juices to Go, Powerade sports beverage, flavored tea Nestea (in a joint venture with Nestle), Fruitopia fruit drink and Dasani water, among others. In 2001, Minute Maid division launched the Simply Orange brand of juices including orange juice.


 * PepsiCo has a similar variety of non-carbonated beverage offerings. Honestly, Coke doesn't care if you buy overpriced carbonated sugar water or overpriced bottled tap water; either one is good for their bottom line.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another spot of worry: Sodium benzoate (E211) or potassium benzoate (E212) + Ascorbic acid + ambient temperature /light = Benzene


 * Apartame = phenylanine + Aspartic acid + Methanol > Methanol = formic acid + formaldehyde   Cheers.71.236.23.111 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? Where I live (Canada), I've seen vending machines in schools that sell canned drinks and those in plastic bottles (water, juice, bevreages, etc). However, I don't know if any of those are soft drinks. What I mean is, you put in a coin, and the drink pops out at the bottom, and also, lots of students will chew gum in school even if the rules prohibit it. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 23:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that in high schools soda machines should not be banned. The reason is they are young adults. They should be making their own nutritional choices. They should be making their own choices. People treat teenagers like kids. Yes they are kids, but they are becoming adults as well. It is time to treat these kids as such. We should be treating teenagers as what they are young adults or mostly young adults. Soda shouldn't be banned. I think its a bit ironic, but they had banned soda in a school I know. Yet, the teachers in the teacher lounge guess what kinda vending machine they have...a soda vending machine. How hypocritical and ironic is that? They aren't being very good role models are they.71.142.222.245 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * We don't provide cigarette machines to high school students so they can "make their own decisions", so why should we provide unhealthy food and drinks to them for that reason ? StuRat (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We may not provide them cigarette machines. But society does. They have a decision to smoke or not to smoke. Society, stores, etc. provide cigarettes they make the decision themselves. It should the same way with food. I am an adult. I make my decision on what I am going to eat. Whether it be healthy or unhealthy I live with my consequences of my choices. And its a little silly to say kids or teenagers cannot have a soda or unhealthy food when the teacher lounge has soda and unhealthy food. Even the "healthy" food they choose for their machines aren't that healthy. Reduced fat Cheez-Its. Yeah less fat. Its silly.71.142.222.245 (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * If "society" provides kids with cigarette machines outside of schools, then it can provide them with unhealthy food outside of schools, too. I hardly ever see cigarette machines any more, though, and think they have been banned from many places kids could access them, and the same should be done for junk food.  Also note that it's illegal to sell cigarettes or alcohol to kids, so why shouldn't it be illegal to sell unhealthy foods and drinks to them ? StuRat (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think what we're seeing in this conversation and in society in general is what we could call the "infantilzation" of adolescents -- treating them like babies who need constant supervision and prevented from making their own decisions. The result is young adults who are completely unable to make their own decisions. If a 17-year-old is not allowed even to choose what to eat for lunch, how is he going to be able to handle life in a year when he is on his own, without Mom, Dad or FisherQueen to make decisions for him? It is absurd and insulting (although I'm no longer a teenager myself) for someone to say that absent "adult" micromanaging, teenagers would eat nothing but "candy, pizza and cheesburgers." We had candy, pizza and cheesburgers at my high school cafeteria, and no one ate those foods exclusively. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To the OP: to summarise: the major argument in favour of having fizzy drinks available at school is that it gives the child more freedom of choice which will leave him/her better off when he/she gets older and is bombarded with many choices. You should, however, be prepared for the following:
 * The experience-in-deciding-so-that-they'd-be-better-off-later argument is somewhat mitigated by the fact that children still have to make some decisions. Nobody is suggesting that schools only provide one brand of beverage.
 * Some parents don't want their children to drink fizzy drinks and some of these children will do so (in spite of their parents' decision) if it were available to them at school (where parents can't supervise). Children of parents who dont care about their childrens' diet may choose to have fizzy drinks outside school (or bring some from home, if possible?). If we are willing to allow parents to prescribe other elements of their childrens' lifestyle (e.g. religion), then why not their diet?
 * Fizzy drinks are unhealthy and children don't always make the best decisions.
 * Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another factor which may make soda decision-making difficult for children is that many lack the necessary info to make a good decision. For example, if asked "is diet soda good for you ?" a sizable percentage would likely say yes, when there is all sorts of evidence that it's not.  Many also probably think that "juices" like SunnyD are mostly natural juice, when there's hardly any juice in them, just mostly corn syrup.  This lack of knowledge is no accident, the advertisers spend quite a bit of money to give misleading info to both kids and adults.  Why ?  Because there is a much higher profit margin on selling fake juice than real juice.  StuRat (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I was talking for teenagers in high school. I was talking about teenagers here. Not little children that run around all over the place. I was talking about high schoolers. As I said before they are practically adults. They are young adults. They should be treated as so. They don't need someone to hold their hand and say "You can't drink that its not good for you health." or "You can't eat that because its unhealthy." They will make that decision for themselves. Its their body and its their choices they have to live with. If you make something a forbidden fruit, you can't drink that because its unhealthy, then the more they will want it. The more they will drink it. The more they will break the rules. Instead of banning it give them other options as well. With the little children say something to them so that they understand their choice. For children always let them know they have that option, but at least try to make understand the consequences of that option. For high schoolers they don't need mommy and daddy telling them what they can drink and what they can't drink. They don't need the school to hold their hand as well and tell them the same thing. They are high schoolers after all.71.142.222.245 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * Well no one is suggesting high schoolers be completedly banned from buying soft drinks or that soft drinks be limited to people over 18 years old or something. High schoolers will still be completely allowed to buy and drink soft drinks OUTSIDE school. But this doesn't mean soft drink machines should be allowed in schools either. Bearing in mind that a school is supposed to be a controlled, educational environment, it seems perfectly acceptable to me that there are regulations on what students can and cannot do, which may include banning soft drink machines and introducing healthier meals in the school cafetria/canteen. (For another example, students are allowed to practice a lot of activities in school but in most schools I know of, any student having sex in the school is likely to be punished even if they are both above the age of consent and perfectly entitled to have sex outside of school. Ironically those who will take the most stern line on this are mostly those conservatives who will attack restricting soft drinks as some sort of evil imposed by control freaks.) If the students wants to go an eat at McDonalds after school, well that's up to them but it doesn't mean we should sell McDonalds at school. Also "The more they will drink it. The more they will break the rules." suggests to me that these students you're referring to are highly immature and perhaps they do in fact need the hand holding your opposing. The good thing is, I don't think this actually applies to most students, most students are smart enough to know it's actually fairly 'lame' (or whatever word they may use). Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A) Sex is banned in most public places so that's a foolish comparison. The argument for keeping vending machines in schools is that they provide valuable income for schools whilst selling a product that has zero negative effects when consumed within a balanced diet. That a school wishes to create a specific environment for education is understandable, that doesn't give it free reign to introduce a wide array of draconian measures in an attempt to enforce a mindset/educational standard on a child. When was the last time that a banning approach successfully stopped something occurring? Making it harder for children to drink soda may help but does the decreased revenue have a bigger effect than the increased potential health benefits? ny156uk (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One comment on "increasing school revenue", this rarely actually happens. If the school makes more money from vending machines, then they will be given less money from the government.  A classic case of this effect was the Michigan State Lottery.  This was passed with popular support by promising that "100% of lottery profits will go to the public schools".  What wasn't mentioned was that the government contribution to the schools would be decreased by exactly the same amount, so there was zero net gain for the schools. StuRat (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Leisure
What is the percentage of population who do not work for a living ,yet lead a middle class lifestyle? sumal (talk)


 * The answer will depend on the country. It will also depend on what you mean by "middle class lifestyle".  Since that is a fairly subjective concept, to my knowledge there is no way to find the relevant numbers in the official data.  If you phrased it more like "How many people in country X enjoy incomes over X dollars/pounds/rupees, none of which is derived from wages or salaries?", you might be able to find an answer.  Marco polo (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict)What country? In the UK it seems that in terms of purchasing power the majority of unemployed do better than the middle classes. They don't have to worry about housing (provided free), pensions (guaranteed minimum), college fees (paid for them) or even payments for school dinners or school trips. They also get vastly reduced charges for leasure activities such as swimming. My daughter has friends with unemployed parents who have the latest mobile phones, iPods, LCD TVs and DVD players in their bedrooms, which I could not possibly afford for her. So I guess in the UK the answer is a little over 800,000. -- 88.105.59.32 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, How many people in UK enjoy incomes over 10,000 pounds, none of which is derived from wages or salaries?"sumal (talk)
 * I dunno, but the vast majority of persons in that category must surely be children and non-working spouses of people who make 10,000+ per year. --Sean 16:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be evasive, but I have really searched National Statistics Online, and they apparently don't provide data on households using this kind of parameter. (Incidentally, I am a little surprised to hear that an income of £10,000 supports a middle-class lifestyle in the UK.  I would have thought that you would need more.  But as I said, the term is subjective.)  Sean's comment points up another difficulty in finding this number.  Though nonworking spouses of affluent people would seem to meet the criterion you set out in your initial question.  Another thing to consider is that many people with middle-class lifestyles (or better) who don't work get most of their income from investments rather than from social benefits.  The UK may be different, but in my country (the United States), social benefits do not tend to suffice for a middle-class lifestyle.  Sorry that I haven't answered your question.  Marco polo (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My family is just about managing a reasonable middle class lifestyle on £14,000 a year, with almost all of that from benefits. I think it's about that, I can't remember the exact figures. Although, we are having to do without going to the Med this summer, so I'm not sure if we still count as middle class any more. Or people could have inherited money, and just live on that. Sorry, it's looking like there isn't going to be an easy answer to the question, maybe you should go to everyone in the country and ask them, or something like that?HS7 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A person (aged 22 or older) in the UK earning the minimum wage of £5.52 per hour who works a 40 hour week would earn £11481.60 per annum gross presuming they took no holidays or had paid holidays (full-time employees on permanent contracts - I simplify - are legally entitled to 4 weeks paid holiday plus public holidays in the UK). I believe someone on this level of income might potentially also qualify for Working Tax Credit even if they had no dependents so their actual income might be higher. I would suggest that a full-time worker on minimum wage would not be considered to be in a middle-class income bracket as the term middle-class is understood in the UK, so £10,000 income as a measure of middle-classness strikes me as bizarre. Valiantis (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

SHWEDAGON PADODA-MYANMAR
Headline text == With this devestating earth quake that myanmar has had do you know what has happened to the "shwedagon pagoda"?

Removed email address --69.47.127.168 (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC) It was damaged, and was closed for a number of days for maintainance. Fribbler (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ?? Myanmar didn't have a devastating earthquake; Myanmar had a devastating typhoon. China had a devastating earthquake. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Musical Stadium
Hi. i was just wondering if there is such thing as a stadium anywhere in the world that is just used for concert purposes, no sports whatsoever. And yes, it has to be a stadium. Whether there is or not, does anyone think it is possible to have the mosh pit in this stadium the area where the musicians perform instead of on a stage? The reason I'm asking is mainly because I'd like to know if fans would like the first surround sound concert where instead of the amps being where they are performing, they would be built already with the stadium all around the building?Jwking (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * i'm sure you could build the sound system around the edges of a sport stadium and then use them for music when sport isn't being played there. I may be misinterpreting your question here, but it seems like you're saying it wouldn't be possible to have surround sound somewhere that is also used for sport, and I can't see why that would be so.HS7 (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No I was actually wondering if fans would like it, like does music sound better coming from just one spot or does it sound better around the building you figure?Jwking (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatstadium would have a problem getting the music to sync up, if you were closer to one speaker you would hear the sound from it first, then the other speakers a little later, it would probably just sound like a jumble unless you were the same distance from all of the speakers. Which is only possible if the stadium is a circle (or other shapes if some speakers were delayed) and only in a small area of the stadium. Blame the speed of sound. -- Mad031683  (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Noise Boys are way ahead of you. All sorts of venues (including rock&roll gigs) use speakers at many locations and yes, if they all played at the same time with no delay the result would be horrible. Instead, delays are programmed into the system so that if, for example, you're standing near a speaker at the back, you'll hear the kick-drum from that speaker at exactly the same time as you hear it from the speakers by the stage, even though the latter has taken a significant number of milliseconds to reach you through the air. Clever stuff. Apparently there exists kit that, as well as the manual settings, has an extensive list of built-in pre-programmed delay setups for particular venues - large theatres, concert halls, and the like. This is all second-hand from a friend of mine whose line of work it is, but I think I've remembered the gist of it reasonably accurately. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To pick up on 81.187's answer, it is conventional to mount speakers so as to provide a stereo image to those in the centre of a stadium. Remote speaker stacks do indeed provide a time-delayed output according to their distance from the stage speakers. You talk about "surround sound concert" ... are you putting your audience in the centre of the venue? I think the problem you have there is noise cancellation arising out of having speakers pointing at each other, rather than being aligned in a uniform direction away from the stage and towards the terraces. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If one cares to maintain the sense that the sound is "coming from" the people on the stage it makes sense to have the sound actually coming from somewhere near the stage. This isn't to say one would always care to maintain that sense. Pfly (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How about the Sambadrome in Rio de Janeiro? Close enough? Asav (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A question about chef's hats
What's the differents of, , and ?. Breckinridge (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From our Chef's uniform article, "The toque (chef's hat) dates back to the 16th century when hats were common in many trades. Different heights of hats indicate rank within a kitchen. The symbolism of the 100 folds of the toque are said to represent the many different ways a chef knows to cook an egg." Your third example serves burgers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your first and second example serves burghers, too. Indeed, they may be serving burgers when serving burghers, but I seem to be repeating myself here.    --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're this person, you might serve burgers made of burghers. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But mostly burghers would be made of burgers. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Or if they're German, the burghers could be Burgers (though not Berliners). Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 06:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I don't understand your questions. Breckinridge (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Breckinridge, they were just jokes amongst some old regulars. Please ignore everything after the answer from Tagishsimon.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My partner is a burgher. He's a chef, and his burgers and buns are delicious.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ...that last comment was cheesy (butt I'd sure rather hear about you and you partner's burgers than your weiners). StuRat (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

211 crisis number
I've checked 211 and crisis but found no info for this crisis telephone number. -- Taxa  (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine it should go into Emergency telephone number. But meanwhile it can be found at 2-1-1. And there is a link from 211 to 2-1-1, which I think you missed - at the top of the page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Buying London Theatre Tickets
Boy - have I discovered a monopoly? I want to buy 4 good seat tickets (evening performance) for Les Mis at the Queen's Theatre in London for 18th October this year as a gift for my daughter's graduation and have tried every site I can find online. The tickets are available but the sites ALL have the irritating habit of defaulting to the BEST (and most expensive) in the house. OK, that's business - BUT - when I order them, I am told each ticket will have a booking fee AND a postage fee added, which takes the cost to nearly £70 each. I mean, come on, how can each ticket costing nearly £60 have a booking fee of over £6.50 added, PLUS a postage fee of over £3 ??? And why can I not choose other, less expensive seats in the house that night??? If this isn't another example of RIP-OFF Britain, I don't know what is. So, I went to a Travel Agency who said they could buy tickets for me - but ONLY as part of a whole-trip package? Hello - do I have FOOL tattooed on my forehead??? Another Travel Agent offered to try to get me my tickets but their ticket agent said they had not been allocated ANY for the whole of October this year. So do you folks have any advice for a poor pensioner who lives in the far Arctic wastes of the North of Scotland for whom a trip to London (a nerve shattering 400 miles)costs more than a trip to the moon and back, and for whom a ticket to a show I have already seen 4 times around the UK costs more than a ticket to the Oscars??? Thanks. 92.9.42.126 (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you try the theatre's own website? Unsurprisingly, they have a full range of tickets available, for £34 inclusive of booking fee. Algebraist 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To be sure of getting the best seats for the price you want, you could phone the theatre and talk to one of their box office people (arm yourself with the seating plan from the website).
 * But I'm curious how these external ticket agencies stay in business - 10%+ booking fees and 10 times standard postage rates is an outrageous example of "rip-off Britain". Astronaut (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to say Thanks a Bunch to the 2 respondents above for their advice. I did get in touch with The Queen's Theatre directly and did get the tickets I wanted, and only paid £55 each for excellent Dress Circle tickets inclusive of booking fees and postage (at normal rates). The booking clerkess was really helpful and explained that although the theatre owners do have measures in place to prevent ticket-touts and monopolistic ticket agencies from capturing tickets for onward sale to the public at extortionate add-on rates, unfortunately there are still scammers who claim to be genuine "Group-Booking" buyers. So in future, I will always talk directly to the theatre concerned, and once again, many many thanks for the advice given above. 92.21.37.17 (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not just the UK, either, we have the same problem in the US. Our big rip-off company is Ticketmaster, which would make the rest of us Ticketslaves, would it not ? StuRat (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Help (with starting in football)
Pls i need to no how i can be helped to be a footballer in life becausl and i saw aspire site but could not get it righe i play welt am 14 yrs from nigeria pls help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seun olas (talk • contribs) 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you play well for your school team or a local amateur team, then just maybe you will attract the attention of a scout from a local professional (or semi-professional) club. If you do well there, then perhaps you will be be able to move to a larger professional club. I don't know how it works in Nigeria, but many clubs in Europe run a youth academy for talented kids as young as 8 years old - maybe you could approach a local club and ask if they have a youth academy. Astronaut (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to Americans: This question refers to soccer, not American football. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to the rest of the world: Soccer is boring. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The world according to Milkbreath, that is. ; )  Julia Rossi (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alas, we Americans may never understand the thrill of a 0-0 tie game. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)