Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 August 31

= August 31 =

Insertions
Do anal insertions of objects give pleasure. If not why do people do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.25.53 (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They can give pleasure, hence the practise. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lc, c'mon give us who believe in you a break - you, I do believe, know full well about the pleasures of your questionable question. -hydnjo (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and do read about pegging, it may make a thrill run up your leg. -hydnjo (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If people didn't like it, they wouldn't do it. On less of a generalized note, see Anal sex. Dismas |(talk) 02:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

men get more pleasure from anal sex than women. because men have a prostate or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.101 (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Has this degenerated into Yahoo! Answers? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sexual questions often do. To answer the OP, there is almost nothing that someone, somewhere won't find pleasurable. Of course, it's not always done for pleasure. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

2 things re US cities
What is the biggest US city that is not on a navigable river or ocean, ie freight ships can't get to it? Also what is the biggest US city (not Alaska or Hawaii) that does not have railway access, especially for passengers? I want to know the biggest cities where you have no option but to get there by automobile. (planes not included) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.43.53 (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You presumably want the intersection of the two conditions. Happily Phoenix, Arizona, from List of United States cities by population, appears a little landlocked, and its article states that it is "the largest city proper in the United States without intercity passenger rail service". It does have greyhound buses, though. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Planning a roadtrip? Well, this article may help you do your research: List of United States cities by population.  Of the top 10, it looks like (and I may be wrong) only San Antonio and San Jose, California meet your criteria, although Phoenix, Arizona probably does as well since the river is mostly just a trickle thanks to dams. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 03:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at List of United States cities by population, the largest city I can find without a deep water port in it, or at least very nearby, is Phoenix, Arizona which is the 5th largest U.S. city, with a population of about 1.5 million. The only major intercity passenger train service in the U.S. is Amtrak, and crosschecking List of Amtrak stations with the previous list, I note that Columbus, Ohio does not have an Amtrak station, leading me to believe it to be the largest city without access to passenger rail traffic; it very likely DOES have freight rail, but it does not appear you could access the city via train. Columbus is the 16th largest city in the U.S.; the largest in the state of Ohio, and has a population of roughly 3/4 million people. Not that you asked, but I am fairly certain (heard this several times as a bit of trivia) that the largest Continental U.S. city (i.e. not Alaska or Hawaii) without access to the Interstate Highway System is Lynchburg, Virginia. (AFTER EDIT CONFLICT). Our list of Amtrak stations lists two for Phoenix besides the Greyhound station. Checking the Amtrak website directly, all of the Phoenix Amtrak "stations" are bus services which connect to Amtrak rail elsewhere. So it does appear the answer to both questions is Phoenix. -- Jayron  32  04:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Salt River runs through Phoenix. At least when it has water in it. At other times, it's just lies there in its bed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost any city has some stream running through it. However, only a navigable river would have a deep water port.  Some rivers are deep enough to allow ocean-going vessels to navigate quite a distance inland (see Port of Richmond on the James River).  As you so wryly note, ocean-going vessels are unlikely to ever make it to Phoenix, even if they make a left turn at Albuquerque... -- Jayron  32  12:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. San Jose, CA, has the Guadalupe River, which these days is navigable, at least by canoe.  I wouldn't call San Jose "landlocked".  Its Alviso neighborhood is on San Francisco Bay, though the bay is pretty shallow there.  But the deepwater port of Redwood City is only 25 miles or so north. PhGustaf (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For perspective, the Guadalupe River in San Jose is so small as to be unnoticed by most residents (few if any San Jose residents would recognize it as a meaningful landmark, in my opinion). Also, I'm not sure the "port" of Redwood City is in use, either (it's more of a marina).  Almost all industrial-scale shipping is out of the East Bay nowadays.  Nimur (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure most of my neighbors know where the Guadalupe River is. After all it used to flood every few years.  When it wasn't flooding, it could have been called "creek" more accurately than "river".
 * There was steamboat service to San Jose, through Alviso, until sometime early last century.
 * San Jose these days, though, has no directly useful intercourse with the ocean. In that sense I suppose it's "landlocked".  But in the sense of its proximity (~40 mi) to, as you say, Oakland, it isn't. PhGustaf (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would first ask the questioner if he or she is really interested in the largest city by population happening to live within the municipal limits of the central city or the largest urban area by population. In the United States, these are two very different things because some municipalities, such as Phoenix, control a large part of the population of their urban area, while others, such as Boston, do not.  If the question is really about the largest urban areas, then Dallas–Fort Worth is the largest one without access to a waterway navigable to freight ships.  Phoenix is indeed the largest that also doesn't have a passenger rail station.  I would note, though, that Phoenix does have several freight rail lines that could be converted to passenger use, if the questioner's interest is potential sustainability.  (Though Phoenix's sustainability is questionable on other grounds.) Hardly any US urban area large enough to be called a city has neither (freight) rail nor sea access.  Marco polo (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll second DFW (Dallas/Ft.Worth) - which is really Dallas/Arlington/Ft.Worth - which is close to 2.5 million people and driving through it you'd be hard-pressed to say that it wasn't all one city. The river Trinity does flow through Dallas - but there are times when the water is only a couple of feet deep - I wouldn't describe it as "navigable" for most of the year...unless you're prepared to count canoes!  You can get to DFW by train - but the utter lack of public transportation outside the very centers of Dallas and FortWorth mean that a car is the only reasonable way to get around. SteveBaker (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Public/Private corporation
Wal-Mart or Google are private companies. They why these are described as public corporation in Wikipedia? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Both are publicly traded; anybody with access to the US stock markets can purchase WMT or GOOG shares. As mentioned in the "public corporation" article, public corporation is a term often used as a synonym for publicly traded corporation.  Tempshill (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To make it a little clearer, the term "public corporation" or "public company" has two distinct meanings. On the one hand, it can mean something similar to a "Government corporation", similar to the U.S. Postal Service; that is an entity which operates somewhat like a corporation, but which is wholly owned by the Government. On the other hand, it is more commonly used to describe any company which has stock that is traded on the open market, that is a "publicly traded" company. Such companies are owned by its shareholders in proportion to how much stock each shareholder owns (if Walmart has 1,000,000 shares on the market, and you own 1000 shares of it, you literally are a 1/1000 owner of the company). Since the Board of Directors of the company does not have any say or control over how people dispose of their shares, they are said to be "public". In a situation where ALL shares are controlled by a small number of people, or where the shares are NOT traded on the open market, the company is said to be "private". -- Jayron  32  12:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Digital watch with counter feature
While swimming I use a Nike Triax watch to count laps - it has a "CNTR" mode, and an UP and DOWN button that simply increment and decrement a counter (I'm not timing laps, just counting them). My current watch is decaying after years in the pool, so I'd like to replace it. It seems, however, that the current Nike Triax line no longer offers this feature, so I've been trying to find a watch that does. Strictly all I need is for it to be waterproof at the surface (no diving), and to have the counter feature. I don't care about lap timing, countdown timing, altimeter, heartrate monitor, alarms, shock resistance, even normal time-of-day - and I really don't care about appearance. Timex Ironman seems to be the leading sports watch, and although some shopping sites claim some of their Ironman watches do have lap counters, I can't find any mention of that in the manuals one can download from timex.com (they have lap timers, and countdown timers, mention of which may be confusing the 3rd party shopping sites). So, can anyone recommend a waterproof watch that has a proper counter feature, that is available new from a reputable online retailer like Amazon?


 * Incidentally, if you're thinking "why can't lazy Finlay just count to 64 himself with his own brain?", the answer is that the lap counter allows one to not have to constantly think about how far one has swum but instead drift off into other thoughts which makes the whole experience much more pleasant. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I do see the need. Too bad if this can't be found. You could think of workarounds, like going to "alarm set" mode and adjust the hour (or minute) by 1 each turn? Though it might jump out of adjust mode if you swim too slow... :-) Jørgen (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Watches are notoriously gimmicky/fashion orientated - a problematic to find a simply functional one..
 * If you just want to count laps - have you consider a "lap counter" (of all things) - amazon has quite a few - you could then acquire a simple dress watch for day to day use.
 * One alternative is a waterproof divers watch with a rotating ratcheted bezel - to register a lap simply turn the bezel until you hear/feel a click - maybe this wouldn't work in practice.
 * Here's a link for lap counters anyway
 * 83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks promising http://www.sportcount.com/ - probably a sports retailer is a better bet than a jewellers.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This http://www.swimovate.com/poolmate.html says it can detect laps using an acceleromter.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks functional and cheap! http://www.swimoutlet.com/product_p/5256.htm though I'm having a little difficulty with the product description "Quality must be 'engineered' into the manufacturing philosophy of any company that aspires to be the best." as the actual product looks like it came out of a christmas cracker, still all that glisters...83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure these suppliers are legit...83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dioscorides De Materia Medica Byzantium 15th century
Within the 'Materia Medica' overview is a picture titled 'Dioscorides De Materia Medica Byzantium 15th century'. The source is listed by PHGCOM as 'Own work by uploader, photographed at Musee de Cluny'. I would like to see this book in person and would like to know if is available for viewing in the USA or France. Any idea how I can locate this book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.212.8 (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if they have it on display (or if you have credentials that will persuade them to give you access to their undisplayed items), you can obviously see that copy at the Musée de Cluny. If you're not interested only in that particular copy, many libraries hold copies of manuscripts and old printed editions of Dioscorides; a few years ago, I saw several in an exhibition of botanical books at the Chicago Botanic Garden library. Deor (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PHGCOM is here, you could ask him. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking for an old puzzle
In an issue of Boys' Life published in the early 1970s there was a puzzle that fascinated me. The premise was that you are a prisoner locked in a cell in the highest tower of a castle which is manned by about twenty guards. One day a careless guard leaves the door to your cell unlocked, so that is your chance to escape. The guards never move or turn their heads, so you can sneak behind them quietly. The challenge was to find a path up and down stairs, and through corridors that lead to the escape route in back of the castle. By chance does anyone have a copy of this puzzle, or at least remember it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.216.183 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this puzzle has been copied in video games more times than I care to remember, so it's probable that this puzzle was duplicated - in essence of exactly - numerous times over the years. Were you after puzzles of this type in general, or did you want this specific puzzle from this issue? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking specifically for the one I saw as a kid. I guess I could look for microfiche copies at a library.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.30.11 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not fair...
My parents only punish me for doing bad stuff but my brother gets away with the same exact stuff...Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 19:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you hope to achieve by telling us this factette? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hoped to get some advice.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Behave. --Sean 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From the top of this page: "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere." Still, Sean is right - don't do bad stuff and you won't get punished.  Don't worry about your brother, he's your parents' issue. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a study published recently which claimed parents were strictest with their first born children. It said that this was because they were (perhaps unconsciously) intent on showing off to their own parents, and to siblings and peers, that they were good competent parents and not the feckless fuckups everyone said they were. That point successfully made by the bow-tie wearing antique-appraising firstborn, those further down the birth order got a progressively more liberal regime; I guess the 6th or more just get chained up naked in the yard with a can of catfood and an airgun and left to their own devices. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a story about the study. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Only thing I could suggest is to be sneakier. Googlemeister (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be suffering from confirmation bias (you're a human - we all suffer from it), and the tendency to put more weight on bad things than good things (negativity effect). Even if you and your brother do the exact same things, and get punished for them exactly the same amount, you'll have a tendency to remember the times you got punished for them rather than the times you got away with them. Conversely, you'll remember the times your brother got away with it more than the times he got punished (because your-brother-getting-away-with-things-you-didn't is a bad thing to you). Once you've formed the idea that your parents aren't being fair, the confirmation bias then kicks in, making you even less likely to remember the times you got away with it, or the times your brother got punished. Over time, this will lead to a slightly distorted view of reality, where you're just remembering the "negatives" (you getting punished, and your brother getting away with it), rather than the "positives" (you getting away with it, or your brother getting punished), even though they happen the same number of times. Add to it the fact that you might not know every time your brother got punished (he may have been punished for it when you weren't around), and you might feel persecuted, even when you're not. -- 128.104.112.102 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent points> I would also add that every individual is different. Not knowing what these "exact same things" are, if your brother can be told once "don't play football in the house" and he doesn't do it again, perhaps your parents have found that he doens't need punished. Whereas perhaps early on in your childhood, they found you to be mroe stubborn, and so they feel you should be punished for, as an example, playing football int he house because they feel you will have a tendence to do it again if they don't punish you. This, too, is a normal human condition, that being that people feel that treatment should be the same, even if circumstances are different.Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If running away from home or assassination are not practical options, then write it all down in a secret journal. Then when you become rich and famous you can publish your life story under the title My Life Sucked Until I Got Rich and Famous. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Traffic light color background deeping
i found out from 2000 to now, many cities in los Angeles have change the contrast colors (R, yellow, green) to deeper colors. Green use to be pale green, now darken to deep green, or turquoise green. Some yellow is still pale and some yellow lights darken into amber. in Mission Viejo, Fountain Valley the yellow lights still glow pale yellow, eventually will Caltrans darker the shades into amber? R lights alot of places have the darkings. Eventually will all lights be darken?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, if it seems like a trend then probably so.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 19:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The change to coloured LEDs (from white filament bulbs with coloured filters) happened over the same period; surely this has a substantial contribution to the phenomenon you observe. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That happened in New York City a while back. The dull colors I was used to as a child were all replaced with LEDs producing much deeper lights.  It's far more effective in my opinion. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 19:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that what you're probably noticing is the change to LEDs. The older colored filters would fade as time went on.  I've seen some old green lights that were almost white because all the green had faded out of them.  Dismas |(talk) 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

College and University
What is the difference between the two of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaabruno (talk • contribs) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that a university is made of more then 1 college, so most universities will be larger then most colleges. I think that is because a college is more speciallized, you would have a business college, or an engineering college, whereas the university could have both a college of engineering and a college of business.  Sorry I am not too clear, it is Monday.  Googlemeister (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * College refers to only undergraduate degrees, such as a BA or BS, while a university can confer graduate degrees such as a Masters or PhD. See also the leads of both University and College. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You may also want to look at WP:Reference desk/Language with regard to U.S. usage. Deor (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The usage varies from country to country. Where are you interested in? --Tango (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from here to end of the latest answer now.


 * Jessicaabruno's Talk page says she lives in New York, so I imagine US-based answers would be most helpful. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the U.S. there is absolutely no difference between the two, legally speaking. It used to be somewhat standard that a College refered to a single entity, while a University was a collection of Colleges, but I am fairly certain that this difference has become entirely meaningless.  With the exception of Community Colleges, which may be the only modern schools whose function is similar to the original meaning of "College", there is really absolutely no difference between the two.  Consider two Ivy League schools: Dartmouth College is organized into several "schools", while Cornell University is organized into several "colleges", however besides the naming differences, they are essentially organized along the same lines.  Some have claimed that the term "University" used to be reserved for institutions with Graduate programs, but look at a school like Boston College, which has had graduate programs for a very long time, and does not call itself a "University".  All of this also ignores the existance of schools which do not even use either term, such as Worcester Polytechnic Institute or the United States Military Academy, both of which are comparable to either Boston College or Cornell University in terms of the educational program they offer.  -- Jayron  32  17:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and all of your answers are interesting to me. Especially, putting where I'm from as well.

Cheap interesting places to eat in Trieste, Italy ?
Does anyone know of some cheap, niche, interesting places to eat in Trieste, Italy ?


 * Wikitravel is often a good place to find out such things; their article doesn't say where to eat, but does describe what a tourist might be interested it. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)