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

= September 7 =

A somewhat morbid question about space travel
Let's say a manned mission to the Moon or Mars goes horribly wrong and one of the guys snaps and kills the other guys. Somehow NASA gets wind of it (he delirously brags, the circumstances suggest it, etc.) Would they send a second mission to get the guy to face justice, or just maroon him there, or what? Someone's probably made a movie about this (or will now) and I would be curious to know how this would unfold. How long could 2 or more guys stay cramped in a tiny spaceship without killing each other?THE WORLD&#39;S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Astronauts for long term missions go through all sorts of psychological evaluations before they leave, and while they're on the mission, to try and avoid anything like that, so the chances of it happening are very slim. There are plans in place to deal with someone going crazy in space (sedate them and tie them up with duct tape is the gist of it, I believe). In the event that someone went crazy and successfully killed the rest of the crew, I guess the response would depend on the details. I haven't heard of anyone having planned for that eventuality. The only missions to the Moon or Mars so far have been the Apollo missions and a rescue/capture mission for the crazed killer would have been impossible for them (he'd have run out of air long before they could get to him). If someone went crazy on the ISS and killed the rest of the crew, some kind of rescue/capture would be possible, and they would probably want to get the station back, so it's quite likely they would do something. I've no idea what, though. As for future deep space missions, I guess it would depend on whether another mission was already planned and far enough along the pipeline that they could bring it forward and get to the killer in time. --Tango (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the backplot for Stranger in a Strange Land. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's been done lots of times, I think. Another example is one of the better early stories of Larry Niven (though not as good as some of his more mature work), How the Heroes Die. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's something Ive never heard a plan for.- What if one of the guys just dies of natural causes? Are they gonna bring his dacaying, smelly body back on the 9 month trip back from Mars? Or just leave him there where "he died doing something that he loved"? And what if he drops dead on blastoff day? That's nine months there and back! Ewww.--THE WORLD&#39;S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just stick him (or her) in his spacesuit and zip it up. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the suit might burst from the pressure build up durig decomposition, which could be far more then the pressure differential the suit was designed for. Edison (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's such a long trip, I would expect them to go for a space burial, just as people were buried at sea on long sea voyages. --Tango (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As can be expected, NASA has certainly considered what happens if an astronaut falls ill is dies during spaceflight. This interesting, if a little sparse article by Mike Schneider, based on a NASA memo, discusses the issue. It also deals with the flip side of the coin that often goes hand in hand with death: NASA's stance on sex in space, or rather the lack of such a stance. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NASA's stance on sex in space is that it doesn't happen, and any rumors to the contrary you may have heard are false. --Carnildo (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And that may even be true right now... though frankly: none of the people who have spent several months in orbit together have ever bumped uglies, if only to satisfy their curiosity? I'm kinda skeptical. But, hey, maybe it hasn't happened. Still, once we start talking about going to Mars, what with that trip bound to take years, chances are that someone's going to get bored and horny and curious enough to give it a shot. I kinda doubt NASA is going to just ignore that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When I was working on a simulator for part of the ISS, I spent some time working with one of the astronauts who had lived for months on Miir. He was pretty clear that several people had "satisfied their curiosity" (an interesting euphemism!) and was able to go into a suspiciously large amount of detail on some of the "orbital manouvers" required...but I'd better not name-names here since it is indeed NASA's official line that it doesn't happen. SteveBaker (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

in zero gravity? WOW! Bradley10 (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

famous movie lines
i have read some famous movie lines before in wikipedia. i just type the title of the movie then the dialogues and lines of the characters showed up. i was trying to search it again i cannot see it anymore. how would i search it again/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.86.19 (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You probably want Wikiquote, one of Wikipedia's sister projects. --Tango (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IMDB has a pretty good quote search; it just correctly found "I'd buy that for a dollar" and "I'll be taking these Huggies and whatever cash ya got". --Sean 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there a robotic McDonald's yet?
A machine which produces hamburgers can't be too expensive to manufacture so why isn't there a McDonald's that is a lot more automated than it is now? Japan has McDonald's and is always perilously low on labor so why haven't they implemented the robotic McDonald's yet?

Lotsofissues 05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be fairly expensive to manufacture and maintain a robot like that, whereas unskilled labour is pretty cheap. The minimum wage in Japan is less than in the US, and I would expect they can find minimal wage staff even with a labour shortage (students, for example). --Tango (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See automat. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Expensive? I don't understand machines at all so please explain. What innovations need to be found to make it cheap?  Lotsofissues 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a machine, you have to make the machine, keep it working, protect against theft and vandalism, pay for an engineer to look over it periodically, and then still have to pay someone to stock it up, etc. etc. etc. If you have a person you pay them minimum wage, and if something goes wrong, they can probably fix it (unlike the machine). If you're talking about machines that do all of the cooking, you're introducing all sorts of potential problems—even something as simple as a machine that assembles cheeseburgers and makes french fries, I don't know, I'd be suspicious that it would ever be as cost-effective and fast as a cheap human, given the possibility of things going totally wrong in a situation like that (overcooking, undercooking, spillage, jamming, etc.). If a human messes up, it can perceive that and fix it pretty quickly. Machines, not so much. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am convinced that they ALL are androids (on either side of the counter). The similarity with humans is as unconvincing as is the similarity of the produce with edible food.  I always thought the little burgers look - and taste - like silicone breast implants on the sterile conveyor belt of an industrious "plastic" surgeon.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading about what happened to Sonmi~451 I feel sorry for them. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But hey, as I think about it, you could probably come up with something. The question is whether the R&D that would go into it, plus the installation and maintenance, plus the potentiality of customers being alienated by the whole thing, plus the possibility of getting into trouble with labor groups (who usually opposed replacing people with machines), would in the end be more profitable than paying humans to do it. I suspect not—or, at least, I suspect the uncertainties are great enough and the potential profits slim enough for it not to be worth the chance. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the Fast Food Workers Union would be outraged. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the previous respondants - don't think it's impossible to design such a machine. If you ever watched a donut making machine at work (YouTube), they are pretty complicated and have most of the same problems that a burger maker would have - yet they work perfectly and produce better, more consistent donuts than human operators can.  I've seen one that could take half of them and frost them in sugar, and the other half and put chocolate on the top half and add sprinkles.  That's very do-able.  You can even buy a domestic version of the basic machine for $130 here.


 * But it's rare in any business for a machine to replace an entire manual process in one fell swoop. What usually happens is that the more repetitive steps are automated - then, when those machines are perfected, in general use and accepted, another machine will come along that connects several of those already-automated steps together into a single step - and so on until the entire process is automated.


 * McDonalds are something of a special case though - they are a franchise operation. McDonalds (the company) don't own or operate the restaurants that have their names on them.  They sell ingredients, napkins, happy-meal toys, advertising, etc to franchisee's who actually own and run the stores.  So the question is whether their franchisee's are prepared to pony up the research & development money for such a speculative thing.  McDonalds couldn't consider doing it unless/until a large percentage of their franchisee's would sign up to buy one.  But I don't think there are fundamental reasons not to do it from a technological perspective.  Much more complex assembly operations have been automated in the past.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The book Fast Food Nation tells about one fast food company which designed a purely automatic burger maker, but it was more expensive to operate, due to the high initial expense and the high level of skilled maintenance required, than to take some teenager or unemployed low-skilled person off the street, give them a few minutes training, and put them to work for low wages at a repetitive simple task. Edison (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a robotic McDonald's would be alienating. We have all heard stories about the lack of cleanliness at McDonald's. If robots replaced people, there will be new points to market. Lotsofissues 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That wouldn't fix the problems I have with them. For example - a good friend of mine spent a summer vacation working at one of their distribution centers.  When the bacterial count in meat that's been sitting around too long exceeds the legal limits - they don't toss it out - they mix it 50/50 with fresh meat and thereby halve the count to bring it back within legal limits.  A burger-making robot wouldn't fix such endemic problems.  A general rule when computerizing a process (any process) is that computerizing a mess just results in a faster mess.  First you have to get all of your processes sorted out - then you can computerize.  Adding a robot to a dirty kitchen just results in faster dirt. SteveBaker (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because a robot is good at menial tasks and fast food work is often menial doesn't mean that robots would be appropriate substitutes for low-wage employees. Robots (and computers in general) excel at doing the same thing over and over again as quickly as you need them to. Adding numbers and driving rivets are good examples of this. They're terrible at being multi-functional. Let's say you have a stripped down McD's that only sold burgers, fries, and soft drinks. How many robots would that take? Let's be extremely generous and say that it's only three (one for each). There would need to be dozens of subsystems, but let's keep it simple. A scoop picks up some raw french fries, drops them in the oil, removes them at the appropriate time, salts them, and scoops them into containers as needed. Fine. What does it do between the times that it's busy? Well, nothing much really. It doesn't do you any good to fry up a hundred times as many fries as a human can, if you're not going to sell that much. So, you get a person to do that bit. Between the times they're making fries, that person can do other jobs, each of which makes it less economical to make robots do those jobs. It's a vicious cycle. In the auto industry it often runs the other way, where workers can't keep up to the automated processes, making their jobs more and more likely to be replaced. At a place like McD's, it runs against the automation for the same reason - you can't ignore the time factor. Factor in that many of the steps are already running at peak efficiency (thanks in part to computerized equipment) and you really don't have much of a return on investment. I'm sure there are a few McD's where you could really make use of robot-restaurant, but you're not going to invest huge $$$ in R&D to improve the service time at 1% of your busiest stores, when you can just build more stores. Matt Deres (talk)

Thanks Matt. That was a really good explanation. But what about the one guy who is constantly assembly burgers? Lotsofissues 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you'd have to look at a couple of things. What are you trying to improve? McD is going to be looking at things in (probably) this kind of order: max throughput per minute, average throughput per minute, and the cost factors for each of those. McD's beats the other burger joints in their ability to push through huge numbers of orders per minute when things get crazy; it's very important to their business model and they do it very, very well. Could a robot make things better? You're probably not going to cook the burger any faster, that's all timed down to the second as it is. You might get more throughput by expanding the cook top into the space the cook used to stand, but then you come to another pinch: how many steps does it take and how many robots will you need? There are quite a few steps when you break it all down from unpacking, to cooking, to adding each condiment, to wrapping, etc. You'd need a separate robot for pretty much every one of those steps (I only listed a couple off the top of my head), whereas when things are not hectic, the entire process can be done by one or two people, who have the ability to switch between jobs as needed. You've pretty much eaten up the space you'd hoped to gain and given yourself a huge overhead in setup and maintenance to boot. Matt Deres (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a Big Mac with no Big Mac sauce once and the guy looked at me like I had four heads. I don't think I would ever get what I want from a robot. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It does not help answer the question much, really, but a fully-automated McDonald's-like restaurant is part of the plot of Harry Harrison's novel A Stainless Steel Rat is Born. It works well there (the characters explain how and why it works), but it also uses equipment that delivers the order by the time the customer finishes giving it, conveniently getting around the limitations of prep time and supply vs. demand. Morrand (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern day Macbeth
I need modern songs that would go with the themes of Macbeth. Thanks in advance. --124.254.77.148 (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This question has already been answered above. See Reference desk/Miscellaneous.--Shantavira|feed me 08:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

FIRST AID
What is first aid? Why do we need first aid? What is the role of first aid? Conclusion on first aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.241.80 (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do your own homework. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is your conclusion on first aid. -  Lamba  jan  15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pocket guide on first aid
Can anybody help me on this topic.............Prepare a pocket guide on first aid for your school. The first aid should contain aid that needs to be given to fractures,poisoning,cuts and burns, heat and cold wave and other threats that are prevalent in that area. The content ahared in the guide should be supported with adequate pictures so as to give a clear and elaborate understanding about the topic. Choose awareness campaign strategy for either senior citizens or illiterate people and prepare a brief note up................Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.241.80 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. (Summary: Do your own homework.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Especially do your own projects and long term assignments. -  Lamba  jan  15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But you can start off with our article on first aid, and most libraries have many books of first aid. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a portable propane blowtorch for cauterizing wounds. Some rope for binding. A bottle of hydrocloric acid and a clean rag to use as a gag. Don't forget the foreceps either. Halli B (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A baseball bat for anesthetic, ketchup as blood transfusion substitute, a vise clamp for setting bones, fishhooks to hold an open wound closed. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good answers, people! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a sharp knife to slit someone's throat in a hurry if they need bloodletting? --Tango (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sissies. Don't treat 'em; let natural selection do the work for you.  --- OtherDave (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget: no first aid kit is complete without sterile fallopian tubes and a priapism splint. --Shaggorama (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Marc Madiot's nickname
This source says Marc Madiot is called "Le Tuareg". Does anyone know if this is true and what Tuareg means (except of the North-African nomads) and why he is called this way.

Rubietje88 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC) (nl)


 * I cannot say whether or not it's true he has this nickname but it almost certainly refers to the ethnic group in one way or another. Either he is of some North African descent or he fits somehow into a French stereotype of the Tuareg. I'm unfamiliar with what the French stereotypes of the Tuareg are, but 'nomadic' seems a fair guess, particularly for a cyclist. -  Lamba  jan  15:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oké, thank you very much. I will ask this at the French wikipedia too, maybe they do know more.
 * Greetings from the Netherlands, Rubietje88 (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

post-secondary education
Alright, I would just like to ask you all a small question about this.

If one is a junior in high school, having been so for only a few weeks... And they have been a mostly A student (a few B's) through this time... And they have taken all enriched classes, and are now in the IB (International Baccalaureate) enriched program... And they were in two clubs freshman and sophomore year... And are now in three or four clubs... And have never had a job... And will clock over 150 hours of community service for IB by graduation... But have only done 10 so far... And have never taken an in-college class during high school... And took the PSAT (Practice SAT) and achieved a very high score... And have not applied for any scholarships or written any college applications so far...

What should they do to ensure that they can get into a GOOD college (including possibly out of state) without having to pay loads of money or applying for loads of student loans?

{This is assuming they will take both the SAT and the ACT and achieve very high scores} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.70.25 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, first, it's important to know what you intend to do your degree in (it may still be a little premature to say). But if you continue to do well, the question will be what scholarships you can obtain.  The most expensive places in the USA have the possibility to get close to 100% scholarships for those who are both needy and well-qualified.  So take as many 'AP' classes as you can - get college credits from your school (if you can) - and get as much advice about scholarships as you can - and perhaps you can go anywhere you want.  My son (also pretty smart) graduated from high school a year early with quite a few college credits already under his belt.  Because he graduated early, the college demanded that he do their "bridge program" over the summer vacation - for which they gave him a 100% scholarship, free accomodation and $80 per week stipend.  That earned him more college credits.  Now he's about to "test out" of some of the easier courses he's taking - which means he's likely to get his B.Sc in two years.  Finishing more quickly makes things a LOT cheaper.  So his plan is to do that at his (in-state) college - then apply to somewhere like MIT to do a masters degree in the hope that his rapid progress will encourage them to give him a large scholarship.  But your circumstances will no doubt be different.  Anyway - getting BIG scholarships is the way to do things - then you don't have to go somewhere less prestigious than you deserve.  You can pick up all sorts of WEIRD scholarships - especially if you are in any kind of minority or have any kind of special connections.  It's amazing how many really specialised little endowments there are out there who'll pay one or two thousand dollars per year for someone with just the right background taking some very particular degree.  Pick up enough little things like that and you'll find even the most expensive places quite accessible.  Some schools have councillors who can help you to find those kinds of things...but typically, they focus on that during your final year in high-school.  So my advice is to aim high - but expect low.  That way you won't be disappointed - but you also won't short-change yourself....and there are always student loans. :-(  SteveBaker (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

State counties maps showing location in states
Hello. I'm working on tracing my aunt's grandfather in terms of (who was Swedish and came to Texas and died there as well in the nineteenth century) places lived and worked, etc., but when I try to trace where he was living in the nineteenth century to see where in the state of Texas that county is located to see his path from where his wife lived, where they married and then where their two children were born and then where he died in 1899, well there is nothing showing me two of the counties within the state of Texas to see how far apart the counties are from one another. I'm wondering if this will be posted and how long before it may be done? I'm looking for both the counties of Gonzales, Texas and then Wharton. I see the other two counties where they had their first son and where they were married next, but not for the birth of their second son is or where he died and where there was a large Swedish community. Can you show counties in states for people like myself who need to look at maps to trace their genealogical roots in different states to see if in their census research, etc., a county is viable or not for a person who has a common name (like "Joe Smith") to see if there are a lot of Joe Smiths living in a given area or state, which may be their correct ancestor or not? Anyway, if this is possible in Wikipedia, this would be very helpful for your resources. Thank you! Regor4 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Our articles Gonzales County, Texas and Wharton County, Texas both have maps shewing their location within the state of Texas. Does this help? DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Google maps can do that. Choose the "Get Directions" button - type "Gonzales County Texas" into one box and "Wharton County Texas" into the other and it'll bring up a handy zoomable map.  If you select "By Walking" instead of "By Car", it'll even tell you that to get from the middle of one county to the middle of the other would take 32 hours (assuming you didn't stop to eat or sleep!)...98 miles...perhaps a four day walk, maybe three days in a horse and buggy, two days if you had a fast horse and were in a hurry!  Quite do-able by the standards of the day.  I wouldn't want to do it in the summer (100 degree heat - and high humidity that close to the coast) - but during the winter, it would be quite a pleasant hike. SteveBaker (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I understand right, you are interested in historical county maps? Genealogical work can be frustrated by the way counties have changed over time. There are some nice maps that show the evolution of counties. This site has links to states, try the Texas page, and then click the first link "County Formation Maps" and you should get this page, which shows the evolution of Texas counties over time. You can play it as an animation or just select a year from below the map. I'm not quite sure this is what you are looking for, but I've found it useful. If nothing else, when doing genealogical research one should remember that just because some old record says Such-and-such County, it does not necessarily correspond to the location and size of that county today. Pfly (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a type of map called a Plat Map that would be VERY HELPFUL to you, if you can somehow obtain a copy of it for the counties you are researching. Plat Maps are very detailed, and show precisely who owns what property in a particular area. Typically, in the United States, plat maps are updated on a regular basis (sometimes as often as every year) for every county in every state in the country. Because of the relatively large scale of these maps (which is necessary in order to show the detailed information that they contain), each county's plat map usually takes an entire spiral bound book to cover its entire area. Plat maps are kept by many different groups, including larger real estate offices, engineering and legal firms, government agencies, utility companies, and libraries. However, in order to find older, outdated copies of plat maps, you would probably have to locate archival libraries that would be concerned with the counties you are interested in. Such archives would be probably located in local public libraries, historical societies, or academic research libraries. If you were able to find an archives that has older copies of the plat books of the counties you are researching in its collection, you could then possibly make arrangements with them (or with a local researcher-for-hire) to make photocopies of the pages that would contain the information you seek. These photocopies could then be faxed, mailed, or possibly scanned and sent electronically to you, and you could then look at these plat maps for names and locations. Keep in mind that plat maps only show who owns land - if someone was renting a property, the plat map would not provide that information. Saukkomies 08:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Transits and occultations in astrology
In astrology, are transits and occultations considered more significant than ordinary conjunctions? Neon Merlin  17:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're the guy with the fancy robe who's job it is to predict the future based on a bunch of tiny white dots moving around on a big hemisphere full of little white dots. What set of "rules" are you going to draw up about what this all means?  Well - the general public have already put together names for collections of the brighter stars - so this group of six stars is a fish - that bunch over there is a hunter - that lot is a bear (well, yes, I know it's just three stars in a triangle...but it's a BEAR - OK?).  Well, I guess when this planet (which means "wandering star") moves out of the fish and into the hunter (that's a "transit") - maybe it's time to pull the old boat out of the water and head inland with your bow and arrow - but do it quick because it'll soon be heading into the bear and you don't want to be hanging out in the woods when THAT happens. I mean - that's the kind of thing you're going to have to come up with if you want to convince the other guys to feed and clothe you when you basically sit around all day doing nothing while they do all the actual work.  But pretty soon you run out of those simple things - so you start making up more complicated rules:  If the king was born when mars was overhead then maybe where mars is now matters more to him than where venus is...you start getting more complicated so that other people can't do what you do.  But sooner or later - you're getting old and the other guys are getting nervous about when you die - you have to take on an apprentice and teach him the rules.  He's alway whining on about "WHY?" - so you slap him around the head and say "Because the ancestors told me so in a vision"...it's a lot easier than retracing the complicated (and utterly arbitary) logic you've built up over a lifetime.


 * Continue this nonsense for a hundred generations and you get an utterly meaningless set of gibberish rules that don't even relate to where the planets ACTUALLY are (that's too complicated to figure out) - but only to where their funky arithmetic places them. You get sets of formalized predictions that have survived by a process of memetic evolution.  Predictions that are too specific ("You will slip on a banana peel tomorrow at 3:14pm") tended to get the court Astrologer hung upside-down in chains in the dungeon.  Predictions that are vague enough ("Tomorrow is a good day for making big decisions") survived the test of time.  Hence we have a set of entirely arbitary rules - based around fictional locations for the planets - that produce results that are vague enough to survive the test of time - but just specific enough so that they seem like predictions.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer the actual question, yes, transits and occultations are considered by astrologers to strengthen the conjunction in question.--Shantavira|feed me 20:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, that was a really inappropriate post on a number of counts. The question wasn't about the scientific view of the validity of astrology, which you would have been well qualified to answer.  It was a technical question about transits and occultations, terms that are used within astrology, which you clearly count yourself not in any way associated with, so on this occasion you are not the expert.  The astrological transit is not what you guessed it must mean from your knowledge of astronomical transits.  Your post also breaches incivility, good faith, and possibly some other rules.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - I did in fact read astrological transit in advance of writing my piece. I wonder whether you have?  An astrological transit is related to how a planet moves from one section of the astrological calendar to the next - quite unlike an astronomical transit which is when one object moves across the disk of another (such as a solar eclipse).  In fact, I specifically described the astrological transit of a planet from one constellation to another (from the fish into the hunter) as a concrete example of what an astrological transit is - AND how it has come to be seen as significant to astrologers.  I'll admit to attempting a light-hearted answer - but the question is merely one of opinion.  Some ancient guy made that arbitary decision - and it's been passed down through generations of astrologers who no longer have any clue why. That's the plain, simple, objective TRUTH.  Truth matters - bullshit is still bullshit.  SteveBaker (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the question was "merely one of opinion" or not, you didn't answer it. That is also the truth. You do not have to believe in astrology to agree that there is an answer to the question of what astrologers consider more or less significant, which was what the question asked. --Trovatore (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a Libra, I'd say that Steve's answer was no less mis-directed than many other good faith answers which mis-target the precise question. Steve is in fact pointing out that the significance is insignificant due to the error-prone nature of the astrological interpretation. The fact that his answer came first does not make it definitive - it is nonetheless correct. Franamax (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct perhaps; responsive no. A responsive answer would have included the information that astrologers do consider such events more significant (if that's true; I really don't know), or that they don't, in the other case, or perhaps that there is not a consensus among astrologers on the issue. --Trovatore (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So let us consider your answer to the question: "Is it just me, or is newsmaker Sarah Palin kind of hot?" to which you answered with something about "The creation of the American Republic..." with no significant information on Sarah Palins perceived hotness.  That was truly a completely inadequate answer and I regret that I failed to berate you for it at the time! (In other words - lighten up for chrissakes!) SteveBaker (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that was in response to an intervening post, not to the original question. But in any case I wasn't "berating" you; as I said, I enjoyed your post. I just had to agree with Jack that it wasn't really responsive (and what I didn't say, which was that it was a bit heavy on that "evangelist for naturalism" thing that you sometimes do). --Trovatore (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The post was well done and I enjoyed reading it, so I can see how Steve would have wanted to post it having thought of it. But it's certainly true that it wasn't an answer to the question. Now, I don't believe in astrology either, which is hardly surprising given that I'm a Gemini. --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! The irony! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, aren't the three stars in a triangle a bull? The stars in the shape of a saucepan and those in the shape of a tiny saucepan are bears. --Tango (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Two stars make a dog! (I think?) Franamax (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a big part of the problem - all sorts of attributes of the constellations are based on a mere handful of stars - that could, frankly, be anything - that wouldn't look like that if you scooched over a few parsecs to your left. Indeed "The Big Dipper" for Americans - is "Ursa Major" or "The Great Bear" for we Brits.  In other cultures, other objects, animals and people are "seen" in the stars.  Just look through our articles on the astrological constellations and you can see that the "attributes" are closely aligned with whatever random picture someone saw in the stars a few thousand years ago.  Libra - the scales - has a "balanced" personality.  Taurus - the bull - implies stubbornness and hard work (just what you'd expect from an agrarian society who plough their fields with oxen).  Pick a different culture and a whole different set of pictures are there - with a whole different set of attributes. Heck - take a look at Cancer (astrology) - it says that "Astrologers are in broad agreement that..." "...Cancers as usually having brown hair, a well-defined face, a tan complexion, a prominent forehead, penetrating eyes of green or blue".  Hmmm - tell that to the millions of Africans with almost exclusively black hair and brown eyes no matter when during the year they happen to have been born!  Of the roughly half billion people living on Earth who were born under this star sign - would you like to hesitate a guess as to the percentage that have penetrating blue or green eyes?  I'd be surprised if it was more than 5%.  The point being - if astrologers are going around saying that kind of easily disprovable nonsense - then it's anyone's guess what random rubbish any given one of them might ramble on about the significance or otherwise of transits and occultations. SteveBaker (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just be glad the question was asked here and not on the science desk. You're not going to get anywhere trying to change people's minds - anyone willing and able to consider the matter rationally won't believe in it in the first place, and those that aren't will never listen to you. --Tango (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So. The question was clearly intended to be interpreted as: "In astrology, are transits and occultations considered by astrologers to be  more significant than ordinary conjunctions?". A precis of your responses, Steve, might be: "It's irrelevant what they think because it's all bullshit anyway". This is the bit I have a problem with. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion, but whether that opinion is relevant or useful to our dear questioner is another matter entirely. I take the view that we're here to answer specific questions. If you happen to know something about the question ** in the context in which it's been framed **, by all means speak up. If not, you're not doing anyone a service by debunking the entire general subject that the question is a tiny part of. If someone asked whether it's better to buy a small fuel-efficient car or a larger less efficient one that might however be more suitable for a family with 3 children, the range of appropriate responses would not include a polemic about how all cars are instruments of the devil, and ranting on about the military-industrial complex, and raving on about how GWB's only interest in Iraq is about the oil supplies and so on ad nauseam. All they want to know is some pros and cons about buying a small car or a larger car. The whole subject of the worldwide automobile industry and its links with governments and global oil cartels was not remotely the question they were asking. The analogy here is that this question was not remotely about the validity or otherwise of astrology, but something much more focussed and specific. You've given very clear and well reasoned answers - but to the wrong question. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only that, he's also made an astronomical error. The Big Dipper is not the North American name for Ursa Major or the Great Bear; it's the North American name for the Plough, an asterism within Ursa Major (forming the bear's tail and hindquarters -- or a plough, or a dipper, depending on how you look at it).  --Anonymous, 10:04 UTC, September 8, 2008.

Returning question - Re.: EARTHQUAKE!
The question was this: '''Are you guys OK? I have heard on the news that you got hit by a earthquake.''' Someone removed it as a "non-question".

The question mark is, or was there. The

?

was in the original question. I was trying to find out if you guys made it after you guys experienced your first earthquake.65.163.117.163 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't experienced an earthquake for several years now. I'm coping with it. Algebraist 19:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here - no earthquake. As explained before - this is not a question for a reference desk to answer.  We're here to look up things in Wikipedia or books or articles or Google or whatever.  It's not a forum for chatting about earthquake experiences.  Just sticking a question mark in there doesn't change that fact. SteveBaker (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Same here, no earthquake in Birmingham UK. Who and where exactly do you think "you guys" are?--Shantavira|feed me 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia moved to San Francisco, and about two days ago, had a earthquake there. 65.163.117.163 (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But we aren't affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation any more than you are. They just run the web site. I gather from the news reports that no one was hurt. -- BenRG (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We had an earthquake last week? Huh. Next you'll be telling me a pigeon pooped somewhere in Venice. —Tamfang (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No post on the reference desk should be removed without mentioning it on the talk page (I’m tempted to say “ever”). For whoever reverted the first post, please leave a note next time. It’s important to maintain transparency, especially when reverting posts by other editors. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So I actually am in the Bay Area, and did feel the little quake. I'm fine. Thanks for asking. (Actually, the thanks are insincere; it was not an appropriate refdesk question, and IMO simply removing it was probably the appropriate course of action.) --Trovatore (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE. Let's be nice. --Nricardo (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this guy (65.*) is not a newcomer by any means, he's a regular poster on here. But I still agree that we should be nice to him. --Richardrj talkemail 10:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, there was some major shaking that caused structural damage to all our articles beginning with "L", thus causing a lot of lipstick to end up smeared on many faces.


 * But, that's not as bad as the quke that resulted in the tsunami of 2004, when the letter "G" articles lost all structural integrity and spilled everywhere, especially our "C" articles nearby. Do you know how hard it is to get grape juice out of carpet?


 * I invite anyone to use that joke next time someone asks about a natural disaster ine one small part of the world affecting people posting from all over.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite a website
Come on people, donate to Wikipedia. This place is GREAT!!!!!!!! 65.163.117.163 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to beg for money.
 * It's people who READ Wikipedia (or who ASK questions on the Ref Desks) who should be paying for it - those of us who are WRITING it (or ANSWERING questions) should be getting paid!
 * Most people here are already contributors - EVERYONE here is aware that Wikipedia needs money - hence this is a bad place to ask.
 * Did I mention this is not the place to beg for money?
 * SteveBaker (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But thanks for saying we're great, the appreciation is appreciated! --Tango (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your best way to show your appreciation is to help build the encyclopedia with us. Come to the dark side: we have cookies. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that editors should be paid? If so, how much?  By the hour or by the edit?  Or by the type of edit?  Or by the quality of the edit?  Would we pay vandals too?  Halli B (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me $100 and I'll make an executive decision on those questions. -  Lamba  jan  02:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We should be paid at a rate to be determined by the total monetary contributions made by the people who read words we wrote - scaled in proportion to the number of those words that survive in the articles they read - minus some percentage of the "earnings" of the words we delete. Hence, vandals would get very little since their words are rapidly reverted.  People who write articles that nobody will read (eg on non-notable subjects) would earn very little - and people who engage in huge content wars would find that a very small proportion of their words are ever read - even if the articles they write are most important.  People who contribute money would encourage authors who write on the kinds of subject they are interested in more than people who 'mooch' by reading without paying - so there is some incentive to contribute.  Messing up a well-read article (such as a featured article that's been extensively read because it's been on the front page) would be something you'd only do if you had the courage of your convictions!  The cash value of getting an article to "featured" status would be very well worth the effort!


 * Nah - I'm kidding. Of course we shouldn't be paid - Wikipedia is broke as it is! SteveBaker (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the foundation is doing pretty well financially - they're hiring lots of new staff which is always a good sign. Of course, that's not a reason for paying contributors, it's a reason for spending the money on useful things - people contribute without getting paid, so why pay them? --Tango (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)