Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 May 18

= May 18 =

How can I be a Birdwatcher?
Hi, I want to know how can I be a member of one of the many Birdwatching asociations that excist. I live in Cuba, and have been observing and identifying birds by myself for years.

Sometimes I feel frustrated and isolated since I can´t share my observations and experiencies with other persons.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to contact the Asociación Nacional Ornitológica de Cuba. Marco polo (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Transatlantic liners ticket costs in 1913
Approximately how much did a ticket for steerage (third class) passengers travelling from France (Le Havre) to New York on transatlantic liners cost in 1913 (in dollars)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosan (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the Titanic operated in 1912, and on that ship, according to the FAQ page at rmstitanic.net:
 * The lowest fare for third-class passage was approximately $36.25 one way for a single person willing to share a cabin. In second-class, the starting price for similar travel terms was $66. First-class started at $125, but could escalate quickly...


 * Now, I don't have a cite offhand for this, but I remember reading that the Titanic charged premium fares because of its high-grade accommodations, with second class comparable to first on other ships. So I guess third class on most ships would probably be somewhere between $10 and $25, one way.  --Anonymous, 05:25 UTC, May 18, 2008.


 * Just curious, but about how much is that in today's money (ie. was $36 affordable for the average person)? Astronaut (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, http://www.measuringworth.com/exchange/ claims that $36.25 in 1913 is somewhere between £300-800 now, averaged somewhere around £550, so roughly $1100 give or take. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm. Not too bad.  Looks like the average person might have been able to borrow or save up for the trip - particularly if they were thinking of making a life for themselves in the US rather than just taking a vacation (was the average person even entitled to a vacation a 100 years go?).  Astronaut (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In Britain, there was no holiday pay until the 1930s. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think in 1913 the "average person" would have had much opportunity to borrow money to be spent on travel, except maybe from a family member. And especially not if it was a one-way trip to another continent!  But saving up, yes.  --Anon, 20:39 UTC, May 22, 2008.

Farming in poor countries
Are there ways many farmers in poor countries could improve their yields without investment in new equipment?

If it's possible to help w/o material investment, how much training and what would it take to for someone to help?

I leave on the 20th so there's not much I can learn but are can anyone point out things I should look for to gain a better understanding of farming?

Lotsofissues 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You leave on the 20th for where? Farmers in "poor" nations deal with lots of different issues.  Too little rain/flood, insect pests/ pollinators dying due to pesticide use, infrastructure, change in local food tastes, (ironically) collapsed local market due to foreign aid (e.g. ), displaced population etc. etc.  Even within a "poor" country conditions are unlikely to be uniform.  Are you trying to help with long term solutions or would you like to achieve immediate results?  (e.g. water management plan vs. drilling a well) There's an entire library wing of answers, but most won't apply to your case.  Enabling and promoting local exchange of knowledge has proven successful in quite a few places.
 * BTW If you click on the 10th little icon from the left (13th from the right) above the window where you type your text it will add your name automatically (it will show up as some ~ in the edit window but will display as your user name on the page) You don't have to type it and people can access your talk page through the link. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (oops) if you don't forget to sign in, that is :-S --Lisa4edit (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Knowledge is a cheap way (but maybe not free) to improve farm output. For example, a soil analysis might let them know that another crop may do better there than what they've been growing. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the book 'How to Grow More Vegetables Than You Ever Thought Possible On Less Land Than You Can Imagine' by John Jeavons. --Ckdavis (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also recommend contacting a development organisation for more info. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Which country uses the most energy each day?
Which country uses the most energy each day? How much energy is our world using each day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMFG YES I WIN (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Amy Myers Jaffe, Wallace S. Wilson Fellow in Energy Studies at the institute, emphasized that the United States currently consumes roughly 25 percent of global daily energy consumption while our population represents only five percent of the world’s citizens."

 71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Does your first question mean per capita or total? Check out World energy resources and consumption for starters. For your second question read the article and look for total annual consumption estimates. For both questions be sure to divide annual consumption by 365 to get daily consumption. C'mon back if you need additional help with your questions.  --hydnjo talk 03:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to yodeling?
Christ, this crap used to drive me up a tree! Anyhoo, could someone inform me on why it migrated to and stayed in (thank God) Switzerland?--Dr. Carefree (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What in the Yodeling article made you think it "migrated" to Switzerland?71.236.23.111 (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (after ec)Oh, it didn't stay in Switzerland. The article claims that "In Central Africa, Pygmy singers use yodels within their elaborate polyphonic singing" among other cultures who are inexplicably fond of yodeling. Alpine yodeling has stayed in the Alps largely because "The best places for Alpine-style yodelling are those with an echo". So I guess it doesn't really have a great deal of adaptive potential. Michael Clarke, Esq. (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cowboys in films, like Gene Autry and Roy Rogers did lots of yodeling, and they were not at all Swiss, although some of the cows may have been. Edison (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jewel Kilcher is somewhat known for her yodeling. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you mention yodeling and not bring up Slim Whitman?! Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you mention yodeling and not bring up Slim Whitman?! Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I find the article's reasoning as provided by Michael Clarke, somewhat bizarre. Even if the best places for Alpine-style yodelling were those with an echo (not necessarily true for fast virtuoso yodeling), this doesn't confine it to the alps, especially in this day and age of recording and amplifying technology. As for Switzerland, yodeling is mainly popular in traditional folk music (where choirs of various sizes wear traditional costumes and keep their hands in their pockets while yodeling) and in the more modern, more showy (and more annoying) realm of Volkstümlicher Schlager. For a more electronic modern take, Christine Lauterburg was very popular in the 1990s. All that being said, only few people, even only few singers in Switzerland know how to yodel, and it's a bit of an oddity attraction here as well. ---Sluzzelin talk  06:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (Swiss, and very bad at yodeling).
 * Sluzzelin, this is text -- you could have exploited the printed word and claimed inherent yodelling skills (we would have believed you) and you didn't. How modest! Weimar cabaret specialist and Australian singer, Robyn Archer has a line of country songs and yodels. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Mudchute cow 1.ogg|thumb|Traditional Swiss tune]]
 * I have proof: Here's my interpretation of a traditional Swiss tune, titled Uf de Matte ("On the Meadow"). You will notice that the transition from chest to head register is not as smooth as required, but this won't stop me from practicing. ---Sluzzelin  talk  10:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * May I (from the adjoining yodelling nation) humbly suggest instant and urgent medical treatment. Alternatively, this would have to classified as a deadly and secret weapon developed by the Swiss Marines on the Oskar Matzerath principle.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sluzzelin! Haha – that's inspired! Now the code is historically cracked and we know the origins of the yodel, we'll all be practising increasily rapid repetitions on an upward scale. A chorus of alpenhorn to you, : ))  Julia Rossi (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk with guaranteed correct answers
This ref desk is a great place to ask and answer questions, but the quality of the answers depends very much on who happens to be passing by and how much time they are willing to invest in an answer. But suppose I wanted to be sure I got a good answer and were willing to pay for it, where could I ask? I found no Wikipedia article on the subject. Surely something like that must exist. Most certainly for in-depth questions about specific topics, but I want something like this ref desk, where questions on any subject can be asked and the answer is written by an expert but understandable to a layman. DirkvdM (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several websites that allow you to put up money in order to get answers to whatever questions you have. Only thing is that people tend towards answering the easier ones (things you can get by Googling), and really, the quality of the answers is often suspect. 24.76.169.85 (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Google had a paid service called Google answers but it has been discountinued. Personally I believe that if you want a professional answer you'll have to consult a professional in the field. Asking question in the RF and obtaining general answers - sometimes amusing, sometimes naïve - if funny and good enough for people exploring a field, but not appropriate for those that have to take an important decision. GoingOnTracks (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, what does "the RF..." mean? --hydnjo talk 18:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Think he/she means RD:The Reference Desk. Fribbler (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! Just a tpyo then - thanks. --hydnjo talk 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone whispering? Useight (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not, so not everyone is. :) DirkvdM (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * None then? I find that highly surprising. Surely there will be a need for this, because a layman will generally not know where to find the right experts. So maybe a list of such field-specific ref desks would be a good idea. And that would actually be a perfect topic for a Wikipedia-article. List of reference desks? Since I can't think of any ref desks that I could start such a list with, I've put up a request at Requested lists. DirkvdM (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One reason that having a "multi expert" panel for pay is that there are all sorts of legal restrictions to giving professional advice. First of all professional organizations have a vested interest in keeping their profession alive (see Trade secret and Legal advice).  Then, giving advice can be dangerous, because you have no way of making sure that the person you give advice to has the basic knowledge and ability to execute it safely.  E.g. I have some basic training in electrical wiring.  I'd only need some clues on local code to wire something safely and choose the right tools and equipment.  (I'd still choose to get the patch panel connections made by a licensed professional for insurance purposes.)  Someone who doesn't know which end of the hammer is "up" might end up electrocuting themselves or causing an electrical fire.  Someone who had been paid for giving advice might be liable in that case.  As a person seeking advice you'd have not way of knowing whether the professionals giving advice at that panel are actually qualified.  Since it would on the internet, their knowledge might not apply to your specific local situation.  Given such dangers a company who would offer such services would have to put in lots of disclaimers saying that they are not liable for any advice given to avoid ending up knee-deep in legal claims.  This would be the opposite of your requirement for a "guaranteed correct" answer.  The best you can hope for is an opinion from someone with a lot of background in a certain area or advice on what professional would be able to give qualified advice and what qualifications you should look for.  Things like "psychic hotline", "your online horoscope" and "ask aunt Agony" are available for pay, it's left to the user to judge what they'd consider "qualified" in that regard (I think even they'll have a couple of "we're not liable for any ..." clauses hidden somewhere in their terms). Lisa4edit (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (oops, darn that bot)


 * I don't think that's necessarily the answer. After all, there are tons of do-it-yourself shows for home repair, exercise, and cooking. Improperly followed advice there could lead to a collapsed house, a collapsed lung, and a collapsed appetite respectively, but there's no flood of litigation stemming the tide of such shows (how's that for a mixed metaphor? :). The real answer is that it would be tough to organize and finance such an enterprise. Let's say that you decide to put together a team of experts and start an answer-for-pay service. Okay, how many people will you need? How many historians? How many lawyers? How much are you willing to pay them to stay on retainer while you wait for the questions to come in? How are you going to be able to ascertain that they'll give the right answers? Who will decide? But let's simplify it a bit and say that you can find the hundreds of people necessary to answer the questions and they'll all decide to work on a per-answer basis (i.e. no retainer). How much will the answers cost? More than the cost of a trip to the library to get the book that could tell you the answer anyway? And, if you're willing to pay, what do you really need the central person for anyway? Engineers and plumbers and lawyers are available from any phone book. Palaeontologists and historians and sociologists are always churning out books. The real reason most refdesks are free is that people will accept free advice that's easily accessible and relatively quick, but if they have to open their wallets, they already know where they have to go. Matt Deres (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also the consideration that for some questions-generally the more obscure or hypothetical-it's not easy to decide who to go to for help.If I want to know how to stop that flood pouring out of my tap and getting me soggier and soggier,I call for a plumber.But who to turn to for a discussion on life after an atomic bomb blast?The legalities of possessing a human skull? A question about women in 11th century England?That would involve a lot of work and phone calls to various places.Here,we have a place where you can get answers and views on ANY subject at all...and there's always the chance of finding an expert to help.A message here saying User X is very knowledgeable about medieval costume-so he could help with your question on 15th century underwear could be very beneficial. If someone on here isn't too sure of the answer or the correct facts,that's not too bad-usually by a group thrust,we all manage to fill in the pieces and produce an answer.For working out a riddle,that's fine.If my house is burning down,I don't want a variety of opinions and thoughts on the best thing to do next and hope we eventually find a way to put it out with a bit of trial and error.I want someone who knows how to put out a fire.Quickly.And correctly.And without injury. Lemon martini (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Public libraries are usually the best place to go if you don't know who to ask. New York's public library is famous for providing this service well. See http://www.nypl.org/questions/. The best thing about this is that it's almost always free. Of course, there's no guarantee on the accuracy of the answers — no one can offer that and you get what you pay for anyway — but the NYPL will always look something up for you and cite a source and they are very good at recommending further reading. --D. Monack | talk 03:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, an example. If you rub two materials together you may get an electric charge. Suppose I wanted to know wat material would be best to avoid this when wind blows past it. How would I look that up in a library? The first problem is I wouldn't know where to start because I don't know what the effect is called. I might find it with some searching in books that deal with electricity. But then I'd probably have to inerpret something that is written in a language I don't understand, and I'd probably have to do some calculations to see if I'm in the safe zone. All that would take a lot of time and I wouldn't be sure about the answer, if I find one at all. So I was thinking of a site where several experts pass on the question to the right place where there is the best chance that an expert on that specific subject might find it. Surely, something like that must exist. And if it doesn't, maybe someone should start it. The biggest problem would be a payment method, I imagine. DirkvdM (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Human penis design
Why is the human penis shaped so ?

It does not have a corresponding part in the female to mate with. The shape does not cause a frenzy in the female 95% of the the time. If there was an element that gave extra pleasure such as a ridge or bump I am sure we would customise our genitals but generally we don't. If there was a shape that locked to ensure fertilisation I could understand but it doesnt.

If you were to design a human inseminator it would be longer to ensure deposit of sperm deep within the female. It would be more controllable, not prehensile but get in under control that much easier. It would have more uses than just insemination and urination and getting you into trouble. Perhaps we could carry shopping with it or operate car stereos with both hands on the wheel.

The above was a light hearted view but the question is worthy of an answer.

Why is the human penis shaped so and for what purpose as these elements can then be better understood.

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 May 2008


 * My hypothesis is that the the above mentioned organ is one of the prime examples for unintelligent design. As to the various bugs it displays, whether in its function as software or as hardware (I am extrapolating here from sundry, well, shortcomings I have privately observed), an improved model has been developed in the research lab.   --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "It does not have a corresponding part in the female to mate with."? I would say that it does. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he meant that although the vagina is shaped to allow a penis to enter it, it's not like it's specifically designed for the human pen0r. Also, I lol'd at "software or hardware"...  Ziggy  Saw  dust  15:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

By mating I was referring to a positive and negative shape where the two shapes hit it works or fits. Look it up. This is a sensible question as if we are designed to work as breeding creatures what does our human design tell us. If I was a human designer I would be against using the penis in a non breeding orifice. That could be designed in. If I was of a Darwinnian approach what makes me and my breeding apparatus so much better than the previous model. A small question but a big answer. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 May 2008

Nature doesn't work that way. The design works reasonably well as it is, and that's all the reason you need to have it passing on through generations of human beings. Evolution and natural selection don't improve anything, they just force adaptation or death, and in that context, the human penis is just fine. &mdash; Kieff | Talk 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To address some of your points:


 * "it would be longer to ensure deposit of sperm deep within the female". Have a look at the image to the right, the entrance to the cervix is way to small to fit any sperm depositor in. The uterus is where embryos develop, and thus needs to be protected, so poking around in there with an extra long penis would not be a good idea. Penis size, on average, would pretty much fit perfectly into a vagina, so that the ejaculate is positioned for optimal entry to the uterus.
 * "If there was an element that gave extra pleasure". I think it is pretty well designed to do exactly that. If your penis was too long, then when fully inserted into the vagina your pubic bone would not touch your partner. If they fit perfectly, or the penis is slightly shorter than the length of the vagina, the male public bone will stimulate the clitoris when fully inserted.
 * "It would be more controllable" Most animals have a penis bone, which does make a penis more "reliable". Its not known why humans lost theirs, because it would appear that in doing so we have hindered our reproductive capacity. In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins proposed that the loss of the bone in humans is probably a result of sexual selection by females. The lack of a bone means that we require other means of maintaining an erection. We use a hydraulic system which requires good health (particularly blood-pressure) to function, which is something that females would select for. In this way we can actually evolve characteristics that are not particularly advantageous on the practical level, but because they help us to "show off" to members of the opposite sex. A similar hypothesis is used to explain why peacocks have such ridiculous tails. Rockpock  e  t  19:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate an answer to my question as stated above rather than a retort to my imaginations. If the Wikipedia community is based around the intellectual arrogance of a few individuals then we have proof. If the concept of a good question answered is Wikipedia this question is unanswered and will never be as if you do not know you will invent the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.166.234 (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear anonymous OP. I agree, you have received some opinions and flippant or uninformed comment, but you have also received some good answers.I wouldn't call any of them arrogant, they are all well intentioned.
 * The answer to your question is that the penis is that way, because it has evolved that way, but you shouldn't think that this means it is in any way well (or ill) "designed" as your title suggests. Natural selection doesn't work that way, it just works with what it has. Its not survival of the fittest, or even survival of the fittest for that environment or circumstances. Sometimes adequate is fine. And the penis has worked fine for the last few millenia. Remember also that it is not just the penis involved in attracting a mate and successful mating, there are all sorts of other issues involved, physical, social and cultural. And indeed in many species there is no pleasure in the sexual imperative at all.
 * Your question does focus rather too much on the function of the penis in sexual intercourse without considering its rather more frequent use as a tube for directing urine disposal away from the body: and the opposite of the erection position is best for that. However the most useful mode of the penis, in every day life when we are sleeping, working, fighting or walking around, is for it to be shrunk / retracted / folded away. Otherwise its just a damned nuisance for most of ones life as a bipedal mammal. It depends on your age, but I think you will find that most males younger or older than a certain age prefer the penis to be pretty much out of sight and out of mind! Thus the penis is the way it is, not perfect at any one thing, but flexible, adaptable and adequate for most purposes. Just like human beings, really. Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Paul. If you ask a question about evolution starting with "why" then the answers will always be speculative. Evolution does not plan ahead, so there is no "why". We, and all our organs, are consequence of every selective pressure that our ancestors were under. Your "imaginations" are the only thing that can be responded to with any degree of certainty. If you would not like those to be addressed, in future you may wish to reconsider detailing your "imaginations" on a question and answer page.
 * Moreover, if your response to volunteers, who offered their time to assist you is to, is to accuse them of "intellectual arrogance" then you will find your questions will no longer be welcome here. Rockpock  e  t  16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are not happy with the design of your penis,please feel free to customize it with "additions" or "removals". Only don't put the steak knife back in the kitchen drawer when you've finished using it. Lemon martini (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

wet Keeshond
Can you get a Keeshond wet and how often? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.86.221 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's Keeshond article says this: A bath once or twice a year may be all that is called for, as Keeshonden do not have oily coats and lack the strong doggy smell of other breeds. Loose dirt can be brushed out, though any dog that gets very dirty should be washed. Keeshonds need brushing thoroughly every couple of weeks. Can catch cold easily (see article).  Julia Rossi (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Goldfish Brain Sizes
Is a goldfishes brain size ratioed to its body size? I have a small goldfish in a tank, it is about maybe an inch long. But I saw some massive goldfish at a castle moat they were goldfish not coy because. Would their brains be bigger because they are bigger? Would they also be smarter? Cute pink emo girl (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the size of the brain of the goldfish. But I do know that the size of the brain doesn't make something smarter.Cardinal Raven (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
 * The fact that they're bigger probably means their brains are also bigger, but it's quite complex to correlate body size, brain size and intelligence. It's been assumed that larger animals need larger brains because of their larger nervous system but recent studies suggest that larger animals are smarter in general. Take a look at Neuroscience_and_intelligence. To answer your question, the bigger the goldfish the bigger the brain, but the level of intelligence is likely to be only slighty increased because the bigger brain is necessary for the bigger nervous system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.87.223 (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (econ)Brain sizes should help as would Goldfish and Koi. Or, take it to the science desk? Julia Rossi (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A commercial goldfish breeder told me that their size is limited by a number of factors, but mainly the size of the container they are in.And this also affects their life span. Opinions on the internet seem to concur but I'm trying to find a good reference. So this would imply that a small goldfish is a stunted or young or immature fish, so like chidren or "little people" (apologies if thats not the right term) compared to adults, no, the larger brain doesnt mean an increased intelligence. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the case of brain size and intelligence, the usual correlation is the ratio of brain mass to body mass, not sheer size of brain. Elephants, for example, have much bigger brains than humans; but in proportion to their total mass you can see their brain is much smaller. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollercoaster
I was recently at a theme park and I rode some roller coasters, okay half of all the roller coasters, but now my brain isn't the same. I keep on feeling the movement of the roller coaster going up and down. Even my brain feels like it's going up and down. Its really weird feeling. But only happens when I am sitting stationery. (I am not asking any medical advice or such. I'm just curious on what it is so I can read about.) What is this feeling called?

Thank You

Always

Cardinal Raven

Cardinal Raven (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * Possibly related to Equilibrioception. That page has numerous internal links (to other pages in Wikipedia) you might find helpful. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Vertigo would be a good starting point too. Fribbler (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, none of the above. I know what CR speaks about as the same happens to me on the way home after a weekend of skiing. While driving home I can pretty much feel the skis cutting in as I make turns etc, it's as though I'm still skiing. Watch out everybody - I don't know if I can stop! --hydnjo talk 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it had to do with the fact that right after all that movement. I went into the car and was still moving. So just sitting messed me up big time cause I was so use to moving.Cardinal Raven (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven


 * Nah again! I've thought about this a bit and I think that it's my brain not wanting to quit the elevating experiences so abrubtly. As I leave the ski area the feeling is quite intense but an hour or so later it is subdued to some extent and an hour or so after that it's almost gone. Geesh, I thought I was the only one! --hydnjo talk 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: how recently is "recently". As the last poster noted, if it's just an hour, thats grand; but if longer like over a day, it's vertigo or Labyrinthitis. Fribbler (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have much on it, but sea legs is one of the common terms for what the guys are describing above with good links. I'll add terrestrial locomotion for further reading,  Julia Rossi (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If short-term then that's the nail on the head (if I can stop swaying :-) ) Fribbler (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently was yesterday. I was talking about at night time. I should have said last night. Cause that is when it all happened last night. The worse part was when I asleep my bed felt like it was spinning and going up and down like a roller coaster. It was last night. I am all good today. I think sea legs might be the best bet. I just felt the sensation fascinating. Actually it was so fascinating that I liked it.71.142.222.245 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
 * Arrh, me hearties! So it be the sea legs, be it? I remember once having "land legs" where I got sea sick from being on land after being on a river boat for a day. Didn't like it much, mind. Fribbler (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right you be, Fribbler – aye, it's the crossing of the sea legs with the land legs that makes ye want to fall over on terra firma. 'That's the effect of living backwards,' the Queen said kindly: 'it always makes one a little giddy at first--'  ; )) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind (fuhgeddaboutit). The sea legs link (above and here) link to a db page so I don't know if you know what you mean. Thanks for trying I guess. :-(  --hydnjo talk 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well its not sea legs, but it is. Because sea legs explains the feeling. An illusion of movement. I was necessarily on a boat, but I had an illusion of movement. "Coaster legs"71.142.222.245 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven

Ah, I get it now, it's Illusions of self-motion - yes! --hydnjo talk 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad it went away. For the few poor souls for whom it doesn't, it's mal de debarquement syndrome, and it's pretty debilitating.  --  Ka renjc 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember this quote.
Issac Asimov once defined sci-fi. Something about technology effecting people or something like that. I can't remember what he said. I don't know where to look for it. Can anyone enlighten me, even posting the actual quote if possible? 4.159.178.235 (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One of these?&mdash;eric 17:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes! "Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology." 4.159.182.242 (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Incest
If, through the wonders of time travel and sex-reassignment surgery, someone changed gender, went back in time, and had sex with him/her/itself, would that be considered incest? Would it be legal for him/her/it/them/whatever to get married? --67.185.172.158 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oooh! Talk about love at first sight! ;-)  --hydnjo talk 19:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are going to deal with fantasies, you can just re-write the law to suit whatever your scenario might be. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not my fantasy. The question was inspired by a certain Heinlein short story. --67.185.172.158 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you'd bother with the sex change. It's impossible to say what the law is, as there's no legal precedent for this, but in my opinion it is not incest but masturbation.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Depending on the wording on the exact law, it could be incest: If the law specifically outlaws sex within certain "degrees of relationship" rather than outlaws relationships by name: "father-daughter" "uncle-niece", etc. Rmhermen (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Or would it just be masturbation? -- Q Chris (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Consanguinity does not include oneself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.189.105 (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you had a child, it would be your clone. D  aniel  (‽) 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily an exact clone mind you, there will most likely be some variations with the chromosomes of both selves. Supposedly this will only apply to any hybrid trait (a chromosome pair with a dominant and recessive gene).  So breeding with oneself is just as hazardous as breeding with a close relative, since the risk a genetic disorder (if any) will be higher.  &mdash; Kjammer   &#8962;  06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the name of the hat?
The hat of Charlotte Gainsbourg. Breckinridge (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like a Victorian day-wear hat, but the film is set in the 1900s when the hats were Edwardian and much bigger. It also fits the Victorian dress reform scale of simplified clothing. Her character looks working class, so that could have limited things,  Julia Rossi (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you spell postal worker backwards
Basically what I used as my title is my question,how do you spell postal worker backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.116.123 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strange question; why do you not just type the letters in starting from the end: "rekrow latsop"? Or perhaps is it "llort", I'm not sure? Fribbler (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible this is one of those irritating pseudojokes which can be elucidated with use-mention quotes. That is: do we want to spell 'postal worker' backwards, or spell 'postal worker backwards'? Algebraist 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tick! Congrats, 68.161, you spelled/t it all correctly. Ne-exxt! Forgive me if I'm wrong, dear OP, Julia Rossi (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "postal worker backwards" is spelled/spelt: p o s t a l w o r k e r b a c k w a r d s. Easy peasy. --hydnjo talk 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite right Joe: Its p o s t a l w o r k e r  b a c k w a r d s. You forgot the spaces between words 8-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.194.126 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah yes Alan, your version is so much better than mine! --hydnjo talk 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Olympic eligibility
What makes a person eligible to compete for a specific country at the Olympics? I'm trying to figure out how Walter Spence ended up competing for Canada even though he was born and raised in British Guiana and trained in the U.S. His brother Leonard also competed at the Olympics, for Bermuda. — jwillbur 23:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know (and please, please correct me) Canada has granted citizenship to a number of Carribean athletes so that they can compete for Canada in the Olympics. And from that, I take it that citizenship confers eligibility. Fribbler (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A competitor must comply with the Olympic Charter and with the eligibility rules established by the International Federation of the sport in question and must also be entered by his or her National Olympic Committee, which decides who will represent its country. As an example of an IF's approach, the International Swimming Federation allows an athlete to swim for a country if he or she (1) is a citizen of that country and (2) has not swum for another country within the previous year. Xn4  02:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)