Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 May 23

= May 23 =

Boy Stuff; Girl Stuff
Is it true that men created activities and chores for woman to do so that they could control their woman not to do bad things? What I mean by this is men made sure the woman stayed at home doing the laundry, cooking, cleaning, sewing, shopping, etc. so that they knew where their woman were at all times.Is it also true that to separate the genders out men created activities that only men could do and only woman can do?X27 (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)X27


 * Er, 1.No and
 * 2. No —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.208.101 (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understand the question. I don't think anyone created laundry and dirty dishes, they just kind of happened on their own. The history of male/female relations and gender-specific duties in each culture is horribly complicated, but I think the answer you're looking for is closer to: Women got stuck doing those things because they weren't allowed to do much else (politics, arts, warfare, etc.) and because someone had to do them. Women probably got the shitty end of that stick by being tied down to the household more due to the needs of child rearing. Yes, in many case I'm sure women were considered male property, but I don't think that specifically contributed to the point of your question. Matt Deres (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I know no one created laundry.I should rephrase my question shouldn't I. My question is: Did the men use those activities to control where their woman should be and shouldn't be? Why did the men claim those to be only woman activities?X27 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)X27


 * In Western society men traditionally worked outside the home and women worked within it &mdash; raising the children, primarily. Activities like cooking, cleaning, and washing traditionally fell to women because they did most of their household activities at the home, and these are home-related objects.  These activities were not created to "control" where women should be, but rather fell to women as a consequence of where society said they should be.  A key to understanding this is to realize that neither men nor women are usually conscious of how they play into sexual stereotypes and gender roles; they try to help out, within the socially constrained environment they operate in.  It seems odd, especially to modern people, since they take it for granted that people question the gender roles assigned to them &mdash; however, that is an ahistorical view which does not take into account that people (even today) rarely question the established wisdom when it comes to social status and role. --04:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * These arguments never cease to amaze me. I was wondering and looked into it a bit.  "Traditional" seems to be what conforms to the ideas of the person putting forward the argument.  Gender roles are not the same in all societies and within societies are not the same for all levels.  This is consistently so throughout history as far as I can find.  For example, European Queens certainly didn't stay home to do the laundry.  Anyone who could afford to do so, either because of their social status or because they paid for it, got someone else to take care of the kids.  Office clerk used to be a male profession.  In some societies sewing is a "traditional" male task, whereas in others it's female.  Mucking out stables is shared work done by whoever can best fit it in on most farms I know about that don't do it mechanically.  (And it's no fun!)  There may be some slice of history somewhere, where X27's "tied down woman" was in the majority.  I admit I don't know the subject well enough, I just know that whenever I encounter the "traditionally oppressed female" argument and ask for details, I find that there are tons of examples to the contrary.  I used to think females in a household with more than one wife were subject to male oppression until I encountered one and found out that at least in that society, there was a matriarchy underneath it all and the husband was just as much under the matriarch's thumb as the other wives were.  As far as not "letting their woman do things" that begs the question "Bad by whose standards."  Looking at historical literature, there are tons of examples of females doing things their husbands would probably not have approved of by modern standards.  Views on what is morally acceptable change.  Look at the Romans for example they've dug up a brothel and unless someone has refuted the findings since, they were sure that ladies from the upper classes also frequented the establishment as customers.  In some historic periods it seemed to have been good taste to "lend" your wife to a nobleman of higher rank.  (I guess in tribal times small and skinny guys would also not have objected if the local two ton grunt took a fancy to their lady, for reasons of survival.) I'm not saying that there have never been or that there aren't women in the world that are subject to deplorable living conditions due to social pressures, I'm just saying that we need to look at situations very carefully and try to not frame things in our own value system. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Differentiation of roles goes back much further than what we think of as 'traditional values'. Hunter/gatherer societies would have had different roles for males and females since males would be almost always stronger and faster, whereas females pretty much have to stay at home to look after infants (males being noticeably less good at breast feeding). This is true even in those societies which were matriarchal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That might be the case that even in "hunter gather" times that woman may have been given different roles, but when we no longer needed to move or hunt woman were still being given those roles. A woman might have had to breast feed her child when she did have a child, but how about when a woman didn't have a child or wasn't married. Housework had always been the woman's job while power, military,etc. was a man's job. What right in that time gave the people to say what is a woman's job and what isn't a woman's job? What right did they have to say that woman couldn't be educated in schools?X27 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)X27


 * Muscle? Zeitgeist? Where being assigned a place applies, the Ghengiz Khan type Mongolians used women as packhorses and being the smaller of species, I guess they didn't have much say. In the movie, A Mongolian Tale (1997), the husband tells a visitor the wife has gone for firewood and she'll be back in three days. When she returned from several mountains away with bullocks and carts piled high with tree trunks, she was expected to prepare meals for everyone from scratch without complaint. The wife has a choice, to leave with her former sweetheart, or stay and the argument she puts for staying is that the man took her in when she had no-one, providiing protection, security and children. Seems that no matter what is achieved, in a duo, the woman is commonly perceived as the "helper".   Julia Rossi (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do US citizens care about Israel?
Why is so much talking about Israel on US elections? Jews - according to wikipedia - are only 2.2 of the US population. Is Israel more important than Arkansas, Nebraska or Montana? Mr.K. (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be Jewish to support Israel. Paragon12321 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer the question in the header, I am a US citizen, and I don't care about Israel. (Well, maybe a little, but no more than I care about Burundi, which has a roughly similar population.)  However, some US citizens care very much about Israel, and their votes could be sufficient to shift a state such as Florida to one candidate or the other.  In Florida, elections are often very close, and because of its large number of votes in the Electoral College, winning Florida can determine a close election.  To some of these people, Israel might well be more important than Nebraska.  (Note that not all supporters of Israel are Jewish, nor are all Jews necessarily supportive of Israel.) Supporters of Israel can also be an important source of campaign contributions.  So US candidates for president tend to go to some lengths to prove their commitment to Israel.  Marco polo (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't think there's been a whole lot of talk about Israel in the elections compared to other issues. I think Barak Obama has had to reassure people that he supports Israel because of his family background and because of some guilt by association that he's had to deal with regarding some of his former associates. It's just another loose thread Obama opponents have tried to latch on to since his policy ideas aren't really that different from Clinton's. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Israel is one of the few allies that the US has in that part of the world. So they are important to the international outlook of the US.  Dismas |(talk) 02:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A few other allies in the region are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and Turkey.--Goon Noot (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear! Hear!193.115.175.247 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Zionist


 * Jews have had, and continue to have, a far greater impact on history and world affairs than their raw numbers would imply. A whole nation of them in a unique position in the world with a unique relationship with the USA will naturally take up a correspondingly greater political mindshare in an election for the (ahem) "decider" of US foreign policy.  --Sean 12:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about politics, but is it possible that the presence in Israel of sites meaningful to Christianity (the major religion of the US) contributes to the interest in it? -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you take 2.2 percent very roughly of the US population, that's not quite 1 mill less than the population of Israel, so per Jewish household or whatever, that's quite a basis for special interest in the people of Israel. The diaspora makes for many who might have influence or political weight towards the welfare of homeland Israel. Fwiw, Julia Rossi (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You ask why Americans care about Israel, which is a different question than why they defend and fund that nation. By "Americans" I suppose we must mean "non-Jewish Americans", there being proportionally so few Jews in the US. Lately, Americans and Israelis have been forced closer together by the common enemy of Islamic fundamentalism. Americans feel a new kinship with that beseiged people. Religion is certainly a factor (although it must be borne in mind that the anti-semites among Americans hold religion against the Jews); American Christians know their God by the name "Jehovah", and most still would be surprised to learn that He is also essentially Allah. I think there is a sympathy born of pity for the Holocaust. It seems right that the scattered "chosen people" should have been allowed to go home at last after that horror. The basic values of the Jews have been incorporated into the American psyche, and the Jews embraced the American ideal as no other group has, so that there is a real identity of world view on a fundamental level, I think—a realism, an imperative for progress. Besides, they're the funniest people in the world, and Americans like to laugh. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, AIPAC is a powerful lobby. Contrast with CAIR.

Atlant (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For evangelical Christians, who seem to have a bizarre amount of influence, the existence of Israel is some sort of prerequisite for the Rapture. So John Hagee, Pat Buchanan, etc, like to show how friendly they are with Israel and Jewish leaders in the US, and I would imagine a lot of Americans don't know anything about the country except that it has something to do with the return of Jesus. (But perhaps I am overstating the number and influence of evangelical fundamentalists.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a much more simple reason why the US government cares about Israel, which is that it is a pro-Western country in a region which is a) largely anti-Western and b) strategically important (oil). Not that anything said above is false, but global politics certainly plays a part too. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This section has gotten a bit soapboxy, but I do want to point out that the influence of the "Jewish Lobby" is probably overstated. Many Jews do live in swing states, and they are more politically active on average than non-Jews tend to be. But they're still 2% of the population. If you look at the other legislative items Jewish organizations have supported, chiefly social programs and separation of church and state, the supposedly all-powerful Jewish Lobby has been rather impotent. Clearly, there's more to American support for Israel than the Jewish Lobby. On the other hand, Pat Buchanan, mentioned above, is clearly not pro-Israel. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lobbies are not made up just by numbers. They are made up by influence and money and political activity. In the United States, there has long been a disproportionate amount of Jews in higher echelons of medical, legal, and entertainment professions, and they are often highly politically active and interested. Consequently their influence is often taken to be far greater than, say, even much larger minority groups, like Black Americans or Hispanic Americans, who politicians often feel can be ignored for a variety of reasons linked to socioeconomic status and lack of political activity. (And no, I'm not postulating any sort of conspiracy, it is clearly just a difference in cultural upbringing, family expectations, family structure, etc.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pat Buchanan is a Roman Catholic, not an evangelical. Most of the reaons given in this discussion have, however, been more or less correct. The real question is of weighting them by importance, which I suspect is regional. In New York, I bet the Jewish population is disproportionately wealthy and politically active, thus weilding disproportionate clout. In the Bible Belt, the dominance of dispensationalism in evangelical circles is probably the cause, since it has a special place for the Jewish people. Evangelicalism, per se, is not the cause, but rather a specific eschatology which is today predominant in North American evangelicalism is. In the Bible Belt, where relatively fewer Jews live, the Christian population strongly supports the Israeli state as one with a special relationship to God and biblical prophecy (I think). Among neoconservatives and hawks, a so-called Republic base, Israel is probably regarded as a key player in the US's geopolitical and military strategies for the Middle East. Certainly for the average American who is not an evangelical, a neocon, or a rich New Yorker, the fact that a small Western democracy and its people are struggling for survival after years in the wilderness against foes that resemble America's greatest foes today cannot be unmoving. And besides, they believe in a right to self-defence in the USA. Srnec (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no question that because the average Jew is wealthier and more politically active than the average non-Jewish American, the Jewish community gets more attention than other 2% minorities. However, if the Jewish lobby was as powerful as some people allege, we'd have universal healthcare, rigid separation of church and state, gun control, a broader welfare state, and other stuff the organized Jewish community tends to support. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Srnec wrote, "Pat Buchanan is a Roman Catholic, not an evangelical". It is possible to be both (see Evangelical Catholic), but I don't know whether Buchanan falls into that camp. —Angr 08:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Buchanan is a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the reforms of Vatican II. One of those reforms was a denouncing of antisemitism, so it shouldn't be surprising that Buchanan's attitudes toward the Jews have long been questionable. Incidentally, Mel Gibson's religious views are similar to Buchanan's, and Buchanan raved about Gibson's The Passion like it was Citizen Kane. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not necessarily the case. It's easily possible, although I'm not suggesting this is the case, that the Jewish lobby is powerful enough to have sufficient influence over the media etc to unduly control US policy towards Israel and Palestine, an issue which perhaps most of the populance doesn't really intriscly care that much about (since it's seems a far away place) but they (the lobby) care a lot about, but insufficient influence to have much control over areas they (the lobby) don't really care that much about but which the majority of the populance does care a lot about. As I said, I'm not suggesting this is the case, I think the issue is a lot more complicated then the Jewish lobby having that much influence and instead it has a lot to do with the desire of those with the power in the US to protect their interests in the Middle East which support for Israel helps to achieve in a number of ways, e.g. by keeping the populance of most Arab countries too angry with the treatment of the Palestinian people to notice they are under the control of leaders who on the whole aren't serving their interests well but do serve the interests of the US resonably well (with a few exceptions), by ensuring some degree of instability remains there so they can have a military presence; and ultimately by preventing the development of a strong, truly prosperous, peaceful and of course given their control over much of the oil resources, powerful region (in the Middle-East) where human rights are respected and democracy flourishes, which would be a disaster for most of those with the most influence in the US (which isn't many of the politicians). However even that is a simplistic analysis, it's a lot more complicated then that, you really have to consider the geopolitics and large combination of factors which ensure that most of those who matter in the US greatly prefer the status quo to anything else. It's not really something that can be sufficiently summarised on wikipedia as is likely to generate into too much of a debate to be a fruitful issue for the RD Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another possible reason is that it is a thriving democracy, which is somewhat unusual for the region. Computerjoe 's talk 11:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Need to Type Odd Character
I need to find out how to type a certain character, but I do not know its name or even what language it is from. Thus, I can't find the correct code or font to use. The character looks like a 'P' but the tail curves out to the right. Does anyone have any idea what it is and how to type it? -- VGF11 (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you give us a link to a webpage where this character is used? It would be easier to assist you if we could see this character.  Also, try this:  click on the edit link and scroll down to the bottom of the page.  You'll see a long list of alternate characters below the edit box.  Is the character you're looking for any one of those?  152.16.59.190 (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Try looking on this list for it: List of Unicode characters.  It will give you a code for it. (If you meant "left" rather than "right", the symbol is rho.) --Haemo (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it maybe ♇ ? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be "Greek Rho Symbol" (ϱ), which is a seperate symbol to the "Greek small letter rho" and which curves to the right in many typefaces, such as Arial Unicode (which many browsers use to render odd symbols). This doesn't have a set way of typing it, but its Unicode code point is 03F1. If you load Character Map (it's usually in Accessories, assuming you use Windows) and type this into the box marked "Unicode", it will take you to this symbol. Laïka  11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Jpgordon found it (♇). What is the code for it, and will it work with all fonts? -- VGF11 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the astrological symbol for Pluto. It's classed in "Symbols and Dingbats", which unfortunately is a group most font designers don't bother with - Arial Unicode has it, but otherwise, I think you're out of luck. There's no standard way of typing it - it's an obscure symbol, but if you load up Character Map and type 2647 into the "unicode" field (making sure you have the Arial Unicode typeface selected), it will appear, and you can then copy and paste it into whatever you need it for. Laïka  00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * *facepalm* I shoulda known that; my first thought was an inverted Б (Cyrillic 'b'), perhaps used for some Turkic language! —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

NES catapult
Anybody here watch AVGN? Anyway, in one of his videos he reminisces about Nintendo Power magazine. He mentions some accessory called "NES catapult" and there's even a shot of it in the magazine, but he gives no information. I can't find anyother references to it. What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The SNES (not NES) Catapult appears to be the working title of the XBAND by Catapult Entertainment. It was basically a modem that locked into the slots of top-loader consoles like the SNES and the Genesis, and let you play certain games online. It was poorly marketed and, because it worked by reverse-engineering and then hacking the two-player function built into the game, worked very poorly on some games (Mortal Kombat 3 for example), but paved the way for a lot of the more recent developments in online gaming, such as a league table of the best scoring players and a user profile section, complete with avatars. Laïka  14:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Cognative ability
I heard recently on BBC Radio about a new form of cognative ability enhancing drugs that have been discovered, i wish to read more about these, could some one please help Thanks 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Zionist
 * Here is an article about cognition-improving drugs in general, and here is an article on anti-cholinergic drugs, a specific class of drugs under investigation. Fribbler (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a handy chart.--droptone (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in this column on his experiment with smart drugs by Johann Hari . BrainyBabe (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys are great
Hey this is just a note to say that all you guys who hang around at the ref desk answering questions are an amazing bunch of people who are both incredibly nice and exteremely learnt. I'd love to be one of you and answer peoples' queries but I have a FULL time job that doesn't leave me time :( Keep up the good work, fellas :) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, RP what a buzz... maybe on your days off join us sometime : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The trick is to get a job where you can answer refdesk questions on the clock. Or so I hear. ;)  --Sean 16:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

free bookseller's catalogs about latin and south america
Hello,

can anybody give me a hint for free online bookseller's catalogs (or national catalogs or bibliographies) about actual liteature from latin and/or south america? It's for a literature research. The sources should be interdisciplinary and don't need an english interface. I'm in search for special sources from latin and south america, i know the worldcat, and so on ...

Thank you in advance for your help ... --130.133.152.127 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a brief look. One problem you are going encounter that there are several languages spoken in South America, most prominently Spanish and Portuges. When you limit yourself to a certain country or subject matter, things get a lot easier to find.  Otherwise most places sort by language, not area. These may not help matters a lot, .  You may be able to get better results if you search for strings. If you describe things in a bit more detail, one of the computer geniuses might help you formulate something. Good luck.--71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Investment a little less secure than CD
If I want to earn a little bit more than with a CD, but not incur too much risk more, which is the way to go? I mean, a CD pays perhaps between 3 and 4 % for sure. I want to know what pays between 4-10% but is not completely secure. Mr.K. (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)×


 * What is your timeframe, and where do you live? Historically, the US stock market averages 10% over the long term, but it is subject to wild swings along the way.  Mutual funds are a good instrument to smooth out the vicissitudes of any individual stock, with index funds specifically designed to track one of the major indices. -- LarryMac  | Talk  14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Callable CD springs to mind - it's FDIC insured. Also depends on who you are, are you investing your personal savings, are you investing on behalf of a school board, charity, pension fund? Also, what do you mean by "secure" i.e. what type of risk are you willing to assume? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are in the US and don't want to go with a fund or stock you might have a look at TIPS. Two major drawbacks are that they could bite you in the tax area and that you can't get at the money for a couple of years. Talk with your tax adviser before you buy. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information so far. I should have provided more extra information as I asked the question. I am interested in investments in the UK and the US. I save every month and don't have a timeframe (different from my own life). I am not saving towards an objective (like buying a house). Just saving for having more security for the rainy days. I will not retire in the next 30 years. Mr.K. (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * UK-wise, you may be interested in the variety of offerings from NS&I. Maybe this? Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 17:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * TIPS are issued by the US Treasury and are pretty much the safest things money can buy so the returns they pay are pretty much zero - here's a list of rates on Treasury paper. Mr. K, we aren't allowed to give you any advice and I'm not a financial advisor, but if you're investing with a 30 year horizon then you really should consider all your options.


 * For example, here's a chart of the S&P500 index since its inception (I think). If you had invested in the index and your 30 year period ended at the worst part of the stock market downturn of 2002, you would have earned 7% per annum on a lump sum by my calculations.


 * Once again, this is merely for demonstrative purposes and you should consult a professional financial advisor before you make any decisions.
 * Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * @Zain: you calculated the 7%/anum based on (815/110)^(1/30)-1. But how to you come to this figures?217.168.1.48 (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In that graph from yahoo finance, I saw that in 2002 the index dipped to 815 and thirty years prior it was 110. Then I used $$FV = PV(1+i)^n$$. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Phonemes -> Sound
Hi. I'm trying to find a text-to-speech program that can read phonemes (IPA, Kirshenbaum, X-SAMPA, whatever, so long as it can do most of the phonemes) and output them as speech. The only program I've had any luck with so far is espeak, which doesn't sound that great, and can only understand and synthesise a subset of Kirshenbaum. Festival is very arcane, and the manual doesn't help a whole lot either. 79.78.114.42 (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia make money?
How does Wikipedia makes money? Or, does it? Please explain tome, because I cannot understand...  134.162.84.134 (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Carlos.


 * I suggest you look at Wikipedia and Wikimedia Foundation. Essentially it's all donations. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is hosted by Wikimedia which is a non-profit company. You should be able to get all the info you want from the Finances section of the Wikimedia article.  Dismas |(talk) 17:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We lure vandals into our secret mincing factory and sell their remains to the local pet food shop. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We wouldn't do that, it's just mean to the pets. Nil Einne (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Spicy foods
Hi all, can anyone give me a bit of extra info on spicy foods? Even after drinking to cool/wash away the spicy food a burning sensation remains. I had a look at Capsaicin which was handy and there's a section (mechanism of action) that explains what causes the burning. However, I believe that not all spicy foods contain capsaicin (eg. cinammon) but do they all work by a similar process?

PS. The article made me laugh when I read 'In 2006 it was discovered that tarantula venom activates the same pathway of pain as is activated by capsaicin', I'll have to mention that next time we go for a curry :-)

Thanks, Mike 87.112.87.223 (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Water doesn't really work on cleansing your tongue. You'd be better off with milk, or eating a slice of bread.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OR my brother swears salt helps. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have the tarantula curry please, with cold milk on the side. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've heard what works against capsaicin is fat and alcohol, so whole milk, ice cream, or beer are the way to go. I once had a peanut brittle sundae made with peanut brittle that had cayenne pepper in it. You took a bite of the peanut brittle that was so hot you thought your head would explode, and then you took a bite of the ice cream and everything was OK again. It was the most remarkable dessert I've ever had, as it was sweet and salty and hot and cold all at the same time. —Angr 08:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of these active ingredients such as capsaicin are not water-soluble, but fat-soluble. Thus, a beverage such as non-skim milk may be the route to go. Some are (as has been mentioned) also more or less alcohol-soluble; but unless you drink hard liquor, this is a slower process; some people may fail to see a problem with a need to drink large quantities of beer or wine, of course. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (in Milwaukee)

Does reading single side of a hand written notebook increases the concentration level of reader ?
Hi,

My name is Pawas and I am a citizen of India. I want to know whether the person's concentration level increase if he always reads the left or right side of the notebook ? Actually it might sound a bit funny but I want to know that if you are reading a book or your own hand written notebook, would you read it with more concentration if it is written only one sided or when it twin sided. Please let meknow about it. I am curious to know.

Regards, Pawas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.111.184 (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you come across that bit of information, Pawas? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound likely to me. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There has actually been quite a bit of research done in the area of typesetting and page layout, which is basically what you are describing (even if your text is handwritten). I don't know of a study on blank pages on one side, but things like spacing, white space, line length, fonts and size, etc. have been studied and described.  They use cameras and a gadget that tracks where one's eyes are looking.  I'm not sure how far the results of existing studies would apply to handwritten text, but it's really not more than a script font in rather large font-size.  Layout used to be limited to a few fonts and the ability of the setter.  With software like "Pagemaker" or "Wordperfect" everyone became their own setter and after a couple of snafus a field of study developed in a flurry.  I used to get results in professional magazines, so I don't actually know what the area those research studies originated from is called, now that I come to think of it. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a gimmick of little usefulness. Do you mean that one's concentration level should increase if, say he only read the right hand pages of a book and ignored the other half of the content? Or that only the right half of each page should be used for recording and reading information? What about the eye fixation? We normally read with multiple fixations on each line of text. It would be interesting to try printing out a narrow column and fixating the eyes only to the left of the column, so that the text all fell on the left half of the retina and thus went only (initially) to the left hemisphere of the brain, compared to fixating to the right of the text so it went to the right hemisphere of the brain. The columns would have to be only a couple of words wide, or the text would be so far out of the area of distinct vision as to be unreadable. The hemispheres communicate (except in split brain patients) but it would still be interesting. Normally a reader moves the eyes around so the fovea fixates on various spots along each line of text. Eye movement cameras could be used to guard against that. Edison (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Molecular cloud, eh?
Is this picture real or photoshopped hoax? It seems God hates us. 89.146.64.77 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What would give you the idea that NASA would want to photoshop an image or that your god hates us? Dismas |(talk) 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think he's pointing at us? :) Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe pareidolia is to blame here? Dismas |(talk) 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, NASA pretends to hold a more lofty association here: "This Carina sub-cloud is particularly striking partly because its clear definition stimulates the human imagination (e.g. it could be perceived as a superhero flying through a cloud, arm up, with a saved person in tow below)." Here is a zoomed out image showing the bigger picture around the keyhole nebula. ---Sluzzelin talk  05:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How remarkable it is that 'God' should provide us with the ability to build equipment to be able to see his distant message. (Why didn't he make it closer - Ah, yes, of course, 'He' moves in mysterious ways!) Richard Avery (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is the message. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sc-AK750 Stereo
This is a stereo from Panasonic. It is 660 watts meaning it is, as far as I know, the most powerful stereo in North America (as there are much more powerful ones in Asia). Is this correct?Jwking (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, It is incorrect. I personally own this Home Theater System and it pushes out 1000 Watts of power. And i know a couple people who have car stereo systems that push out over 1000watts of power. --Nick910 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but stereos, car systems, and home theater systems are three different things. I specifically said STEREO, two way speakers with possibly a sub. So...I stand correct it seems so far.Jwking (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even presuming such a narrow definition, I would suspect there would be many stereos in North America that are more powerful. Whether there were imported by people, custom made, or simply no longer in development there would almost definitely be some. If you are looking for the most powerful stereo system commercially available in North America you need to be more clear Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so your looking for a shelf system of some sort, then i have found you one! 880watt, classified as a shelf system Here from best-buy. I also find it hard to believe that 660watt be the most powerful system in the good ol' USA. --Nick910 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this is more powerful. But again...five speakers. I'm looking for three, a subwoofer, and two speakers on the right and left. Besides, this model u showed me is obsolete. Indeed though, it holds the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwking (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok i hit the nail on the head this time. 800watt power with only 2 speakers "left and right" Hope this meets the criteria :-) --Nick910 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Autobon in Europe
Someone told me that the Autobon in Europe is made of really thick concrete. Now my friends and I are wondering, exactly how thick is the concrete on the Autobon? I have tried to search it, to no avail! Thanks for any help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.33.83 (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note the Autobahn is the name of motorways in Germany (and also Austria and most of Switzerland) only. This says that it is 68 cm thick. That is mighty thick! Fribbler (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S.: 27 inches if you're not metric! :-) Fribbler (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, "Autobahn" is the word in German in all countries where they speak it, not just Germany. But since Germany is the only one with no speed limit, they may very well make theirs more durable by using thicker concrete than the others... I don't know. --Anonymous, 22:28 UTC, May 23, 2008.
 * (Corrected my answer above accordingly) Fribbler (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies in advance for not being able to cite references here, but I remember reading, at least a decade ago, about the differences between Autobahn and Interstate. There are two big ones:
 * Thickness of concrete layer, already noted, is more than double an Interstate highway, and
 * Depth of roadbed, in several layers, is four feet rather than two.
 * Consequently, a properly-maintained length of Autobahn has an expected lifetime of over 40 years, while the US Interstate system expects to replace theirs in the 20-25-year timeframe.
 * -- Danh, 63.231.162.222 (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why use concrete rather than more standard materials? Concrete is bad to drive on, it's noisy and iirc saps engine power. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's durable. I remember driving on the Bundesautobahn 9 on the original concrete of the 1930s 15 years ago.--88.75.219.46 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They do take their Autobahns serious. There are tons of regulation describing what and how they should build and pave an Autobahn.  The Deckschicht German wiki article describes two paving materials used on Autobahns one is mastic asphalt with "0/8 and even 0/5 mm" mineral mixture, sprinkled with gravel "2/5, 2/4 or 1/3 mm" to make it less slippery. It's said that this material is expensive because it has to be applied at high temperatures and tends to get slippery under certain conditions.  The other is concrete paving (white paving) in a thickness of "18 to 30 cm". In "5-6 m " long slabs, not counting rebar. (Standards are DIN 1045, DIN 18316 und ZTV Beton-StB)  You should note that the paving material (Deckschicht literal translation "top coat"?) is only the very top layer of several that make up an Autobahn.  That's probably why the figure in this article differs from what Fibbler found. Lisa4edit (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. could someone get that image Oberbau.Autobahn.jpg to show up properly here?
 * Only by moving it to Commons, which is hardly worth it since it's labeled in German and so it's only usable at German Wikipedia. But anyone can see it by clicking de:Bild:Oberbau.Autobahn.jpg. —Angr 08:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Transgendered abortions
Look at this article : male pregnancy. It is being reported that more and more transgendered people want to have babies. But yet, isn't it illegal for men to have abortions ? Would it be a form of discrimination if men can't have abortion ? What does the law say about all this ? 69.157.238.199 (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any law restricting abortion to one gender.  In any case, if your question is about transgendered men who want to have babies, they are not likely to abort a pregnancy that was wanted and planned, surely?.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * XD, see Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina --Ouzo (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume 69 is referring to a transman who, probably after some sort of surgery (although in future this may change), is legally consider a man but retains at least a womb and probably a vagina and could perhaps get pregnant in theory pregnant by accident (although with any hormone treatment this is very very unlikely). Of course even if it's not an accident, presuming IVF is not involved it's possible an abortion may be desired if e.g. it turns out the fetus has a major genetic or chromosomal abonormality. Even with IVF, it's still possible some developmental abnormality may arise I presume. But I agree with you, I'm not aware that abortion is ever for any reason specifically restricted to one gender. Perhaps 69 is getting confused by the common slogan of a 'woman's right to choose' Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Empire State Building Dedication
When I was a wee lad (Some 60 years or so ago), we had penny scales that (for a penny) would give you your weight and answer a question or give some piece of trivia. I seem to remember that the scale once reported that the Empire State Building was dedicated as a monument to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Is there any way to confirm/deny that? I'd imagine that if it were true, it's been expunged because of the obvious political incorrectness to today's USA culture. On the other hand, it would be a fabulous piece of trivia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.8.9 (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuredly an urban legend. The guy who had the ESB built, John J. Raskob, was a staunch conservative. Perhaps someone got mixed up and is thinking of Diego Rivera's mural that was going to go into the Rockefeller Center but was removed because it had Lenin in it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict)I think you may be thinking of the Statue of Liberty being related to the French revolution; which it certainly is! The Empire State Building is capitalist in ideation as far as I know. Anybody heard of this rumour? Fribbler (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Corvus cornix talk  03:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Take your pick. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Daleks were bolshevik... -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * However daleko is Russian for "far away". Is this a sign of conspiracy? SaundersW (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there are some - mind you, weasely characters of a McCarthystic bend - who think the Bolsheviks actually were Borgian Daleks. Merely consider their favourite mantra of dialectic materialism "EX-TER-MI-NATE", an early tribute to Soviet Social Realism...  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could the Borg assimilate a Dalek? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My citation needed wasn't clear. I was asking for evidence that the Statue of Liberty is related to the French Revolution.   Corvus cornix  talk  19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here the French gave the statue of liberty to America on the hundredth anniversary of their revolution, and the Americans gave the French a mini-version on the hundredth anniversary of theirs. Tenuous a bit, but heh, it's a well known connection! :-) Fribbler (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This connection? Have to laugh at the French getting in first with the biggest one. By their statutes statues ye shall get the picture.  Julia Rossi (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's proof that the copy was in honor of the French Revolution, but the original still doesn't have proof that it was in honor of the French Revolution.  Corvus cornix  talk  04:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)