Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 September 10

= September 10 =

ibanes guitar
i have ibanes destroyer guitar 1975or1976serial number is h7765681 tell me about this guitar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewind54 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Start here: Ibanez Destroyer. Come back with any follow-up questions. Consider asking at User talk:TheDestroyerGuy - that user seems to have been responsible for much of the ID article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Photography question
After reading about the so-called "Crasher Squirrel", I started to take a look at the National Geographic Daily Dozen. The photos are all really impressive for a lot of reasons, but I am blown away with how rich the colors are and how much depth there is in most of the pictures. My crappy little digital camera takes photos with no depth and washed out colors. Obviously a lot of the depth is due to raw megapixellage, I suppose, but what about the richness of the colors? Put simply: in buying a camera, what exactly is one looking for if you want to get photos that have this level of richness to them? I know that a huge amount of photography is in setting up the shot, but some of these seem just way better than anything my camera could ever produce, no matter how brilliant I was in arranging the photos (and I'm not half bad at that). I am sure this is something that serious camera people know about... could someone enlighten me? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, regardless of how many megapixels your camera has, MUCH of the depth-of-field and color richness is going to be due to the camera lens. The tiny lenses in a cheap digital camera will not capture enough light to produce the kinds of high-quality images that professional-grade cameras, even digital ones, will.  Having an insanely high number of megapixels just means that your camera will more accurately store its poor-quality images.  -- Jayron  32  01:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the sensor is actually more important than the lens. If you have a fixed area for the sensor, the only way to get more pixels is to cram more charge-coupled devices into that fixed area, meaning you have to make them smaller.  But the smaller they are, the noisier they are.  So if you want higher resolution with the same fidelity, eventually you have to actually make the sensor bigger.  --Trovatore (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Point-and-shoot digital cameras typically have quite small sensors. More expensive SLRs have APS-C sensors, which are smaller than 35mm, but allow greater light-gathering power, reduced sensor noise and higher resolution. Professional-grade SLRs use full-frame 24 x 35 mm sensors, with further advantages, while Hasselblads use an even larger sensor, up to 40 x 53 mm. Note that larger sensors may have the same megapixel count as a smaller sensor; megapixels do not necessarily translate to better quality, unless you're making very big prints (and even then there are ways around that). Like increasing size in film format, larger sensors produce better images, all things being equal.  However, it may be that you simply have the camera settings wrong.  Most consumer cameras have "picture modes" that enhance certain ranges to taste, usually by making colors more vivid for landscapes, or by narrowing depth of field for portraits. You might be using a default mode that does nothing.  Also, any professionally-produced image will be processed in Photoshop or Lightroom to alter contrast, saturation, vibrance, exposure range, etc.  You might want to try some post-processing in the software that presumably came with your camera, or use Photoshop Elements.   Acroterion  (talk)  02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DSLR - I have yet to see a point and shoot that can reproduce the look of DSLR and film cameras. --antilivedT 02:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, the problem with DSLRs is that they're big, heavy, and expensive. For me personally the problem with "expensive" is not the one-time outlay but the fact that it means you have to be so careful with it.  I do most of my photography in situations where I want to be able not to get too upset if my camera gets wrecked, and where I don't want to bother with either the weight or the bulk of a DSLR.  But sure, there's a compromise to be made in image quality with that approach. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a really great NASA page somewhere that relates quality of lens to size and resolution of detector - it makes the point very forceably that lens quality and detector size (not resolution) is THE determining factor. Since a 35mm camera will have a much bigger lens than the pathetic little thing that most cheap digital cameras have - that explains the results you've seen.  Now - where was that dang NASA page?  Oh yeah...Here!. SteveBaker (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The OP may be viewing the National Geographic pictures on a screen that emits light or printed on high quality glossy paper. The same pictures printed on ordinary paper using a common inkjet printer may compare better with pictures from the OP's camera. Small digital cameras usually employ JPEG data compression that degrades the picture, but some have an option to obtain the raw picture (larger file). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. (Just to reply to a few simple things: no, Photoshop won't improve the depth of my pictures, trust me; no, I'm not viewing the National Geographic site any differently than I would my own photos, mine just look like crap.) It seems that in the end if I want something that really looks good, I have to invest in a bigger sensor and a bigger lens. That's helpful. (And my little crap camera was not meant for much, so I'm not trying to rag on it.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's mentioned the two biggest factors: quality of lighting, and skill of the photographer. No amount of hardware or software will rescue a landscape that's been photographed in the late afternoon, where the color has been washed out by haze and high, thin clouds. And skill tells you where to stand, where to point your camera, and what to wait for to get the best picture possible. --Carnildo (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Get the exposure correct by understanding how and why to use a light meter properly. Obviously you then need a camera that can have its exposure manually set. I'm sure the National Geographic photos are also then digitally processed to adjust the brightness, contrast, colour saturation etc. High dynamic range imaging is an example of what can be done by manipulating a digital image, see also Tone mapping and in particular the image of the Grand Canyon which illustrates the importance of correct exposure. 89.243.184.30 (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wine tasting
At wine tastings, do the tasters get drunk? I've been under the impression, based on a MindTrap question from long ago, that tasters didn't even swallow the wine, much less drink enough of it to become drunk. But a friend of mine told me that the participants at a wine tasting were carousing around drunk afterward. I read our entire article wine tasting, but either it doesn't say or I'm having some serious reading issues. ÷seresin 03:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Well, at least they don't get drunk off of what they are judging.  My father has been a judge at a tasting or two.  From what he has told me, the amount in the glasses is quite small.  Through an entire tasting, the judge may only put into his mouth what most people would call a regular sized glass or two.  If I remember the numbers correctly, they only taste about 2 ounces of each wine from a group of maybe five to ten wines.  And yes, they do spit it out. Dismas |(talk) 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Often, sommeliers may not swallow wine, as they are primarily concerned with keeping sharp senses for the purpose of very carefully judging and grading the wines they are tasting. However, at public wine tastings; the type where you go to the winery and pay your 20 bucks, and sample a variety of wines that they offer, people don't spit the wine out.  Basically, its a twenty dollar wine buffet, and the level of inebriation is up to the customers.  I think it would be socially rude for people to get shitfaced at a wine tasting, but I have certainly maintained a good buzz at one, and I expect many people may as well.  -- Jayron  32  03:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Loving the combination of 'socially rude' and 'shitfaced' into 1 coherent and accurate sentence! 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am to please, or as the sign over the men's room toilet stated "You aim too, please!" -- Jayron  32  14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The op's question sounds like a public wine tasting event. Like Jayron said, it's up to the participant.  There's usually signs or flyers that explain that you may spit or swallow, so there will be people walking around drunk and people sober.  Personally, I think wine is usually too good to waste.  --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why people at wine tastings would ever spit it out. Surely in order to judge the wine, you need to swallow it to get the full taste.  I know practically nothing about wine, but how much can you tell about a wine just by sloshing it around?  Otherwise you're like a film critic who writes a review of a film having left it half way through.  --Richardrj talkemail 09:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's because the taster may need to sample several wines and he would need to keep his senses "sharp", as Jayron mentions. I know less than nothing about wines but perhaps it is possible to make inferences about the full taste by merely sloshing it about. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sampling or consuming a wine are as different as dating or marrying a lady. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflicts) As a real ale connoisseur and trained taster (yes, there really are courses on how to drink beer!) I agree that the gustatory sensations experienced during the swallow and for up to a minute therefter, known in our circles as "the finish", are an important portion of a drink's overall qualities, and should not be neglected - beer tasters always swallow, and both describe and (when applicable) award marks to the finish.
 * Although the finishes of wines are generally not as prominent overall as in (good) beers, they are (to my perceptions) still significant. That they are de-emphasised in formal wine tasting is perhaps partly because that activity takes place in social circumstances that frown more on mild inebriation, and partly because, wines being somewhat stronger than beers, inebriation would ensue more swiftly. (Increasing inebriation does also lessen the ability to discriminate and judge tastes properly.) It may also be that the finishes of wines are more persistant than those of beers, making successive assessments of different wines more difficult if swallowed, but since I myself rarely drink more than one wine per occasion, I cannot vouch for this. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was at a wine tasting last week and although spittoons were provided, very few people were availing themselves of them. I certainly didn't and got very drunk indeed. Cheers! Now, 'do you spit or swallow?' that is a question I never thought I'd see on the reference desk! Juliankaufman (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we have no taste buds beyond behind our tongues, there is no need to swallow in order to ensure one obtains the fullest experience. And, a professional taster may try literally scores of wines in a single day.
 * More interesting, professional single malt whisky tasters (at the distilleries) don’t put that delicious beverage in their mouths at all! Rather, one puts a small amount in the palm of one hand and after vigorously rubbing both hands together, inhales the fumes. Because most tasting is actually smelling, the results are good enough to judge the quality of the whisky, and yet not enough to overwhelm the taste buds after just a couple of attempts. One should not, however, drive afterwards ! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm according to our article, "Taste buds are small structures on the upper surface of the tongue, soft palate, upper esophagus and epiglottis that provide information about the taste of food being eaten." So there are some in the throat as well. Googlemeister (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What is this signature?
I was looking at some photos the White House has posted to Flickr and there is a picture of President Obama signing a bill. There are three signatures: Nancy Pelosi, President Obama and another person, who appears to be president pro tempore. Who is the signature? It doesn't look like Robert Byrd or Joe Biden's signature. --Blue387 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it could be Joseph Biden's signature. It is not identical to the one in our article on Joe Biden, but it could be a more formal signature (our article's signature is for Joe Biden) "Joseph R. Biden" or something like that.  There is definately a middle R. initial there.  I cannot read the first name, but the initial capital of the last name looks as though it could be similar to Biden's distinctive "B" in the signature of our article.  Presumably, as the official President of the Senate, his signature would adorn a bill passed by the Senate, and not that of the President Pro Tempore...  -- Jayron  32  03:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blow it up to "original" size and you can see that the second signature is that not of the Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate [ex officio], but of the acting President of the Senate pro tempore (emphasised words written in). "Acting" would not have been added to the title of Robert Byrd, the elected but ailing President pro tem. So it's someone else. There are 57 other Democratic Senators (counting Joseph Lieberman but not Bernard Sanders), but I haven't figured out which one. A list you can check yourself is at Template:Obama confirmations (which I formatted, but which unfortunately doesn't include all the middle initials). —— Shakescene (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Obama signed the Bill on August 7th. Now the question is when did the Acting President pro tempore sign it? The Acting President on August 7th was Jeff Merkley. On August 6th it was Kirsten Gillibrand. On the 5th Tom Udall. On the 4th Roland Burris. On the 3rd Mark R. Warner, the only one who's name (or signature) comes close, but not quite. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a poorly done Mark R. Warner to me; the k is not very complete but the rest looks exactly like his signature, albeit more hurried and/or nervous or whatever (the W is a little out of control, but clearly his). I give him a C- in calligraphy. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Name
Whenever I make up a nickname for one of my friends, it is unsuccessful, but whenever someone else makes up a nickname, it is successful, even if my nickname is better. Why are my nicknames so unsuccessful? Jc iindyysgvxc (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because things like nicknames are very subjective and depend on the taste and fancy - but not only of the person nicknamed, much more on that of the collective that in prospect will use it. Also, when announced, it needs to catch on quickly, and there needs to be a group of people to use it. For example, I had a few nicknames attached to myself, like Gruber (back in primary school, I don't know why for sure), Bohun because of some of my family roots, or Dynamite because I was dilligent at work, but none of them stuck, because there wasn't really anybody to call me that, the collective I mentioned above was practically nonce. Another one, however, stuck - Joker, even though I didn't really like it, and there was a bottleneck, it remained and even this year I got to know people that started calling me by it. I believe it stuck because it was simple, funny, and plays on a certain aspect of my physique (take a guess!). And it's been in continuous use for 15 years - and counting. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A nickname has to achieve a certain "critical mass" in a society in order to grow in usage or at least be self sustaining. The OP doesn't say what his/her criteria are for judging one nickname as better than another. One must not forget that "no nickname" i.e. using a person's real name, is a contending usage to using any nickname at all. Nicknames are generally liked for their appropriateness and recognizability, not considering who created them. Perhaps the OP's friends are distracted by their knowledge that the OP is busy inventing nicknames and monitoring who uses them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are choosing nicknames like your username, it is understandable that they dont stick :) Googlemeister (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

lonely planet guide to tokyo ignores disneyworld
I have a 1994 guide to tokyo by lonely planet and includes details of the tokyo disneyworld, how to get there, the cost etc., yet the latest editions make no mention at all of disneyworld. why is this? isn't lonely planet supposed to be impartial. this is too big an attraction to ignore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Disneyworld itself isn't what it used to be compared to what's available closer to home in the English-speaking world. Neon  Merlin  07:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Guidebooks only have a certain amount of space and they can't include everything. By and large the kind of people who use the Lonely Planet guides will not be interested in going to Disneyworld. --Richardrj talkemail 08:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What would make you think that Lonely Planet is supposed to be impartial? -- LarryMac  | Talk  15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's called Tokyo Disney Resort (and not Disney World Tokyo), and (despite its name) it's in Chiba, not Tokyo. So maybe it is in the Tokyo book, but you're not looking in the D part of the index, rather than the T part. If that's not it (if it really isn't in the book) then Lonely Planet may have shifted coverage of it from the Tokyo guide to the general Japan guide; that's particularly likely if you're looking at one of their little pocket-sized city guides, which tend to stick exclusively to the stuff that's in the centre of cities, not attractions in the outskirts or in the greater metropolis. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Both science and art PhDs
How many people have PhDs in both a science and an art or humanity? Neon Merlin  07:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One hundred and thirty-six. --Richardrj talkemail 08:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And there was I thinking the answer to everything in life was 42...  Gazhiley (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't really expect anyone to get that, so I'll explain. I'm quoting from Bob Dylan, who in a 1965 interview was asked the ludicrous question "How many people who labour in the same musical vineyards in which you toil, how many are protest singers?" To point up the daftness of the question, Dylan shot back the response "How many? One hundred and thirty-six." --Richardrj talkemail 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think statistics at this level are kept. We can give you total numbers of science PhDs (in the US, anyway), total numbers of humanities PhDs, but have no number that indicates where they overlap. (And they surely do; I know a number of people who have such degrees—often one in a hard science and one in history, which produces a pretty sharp history of science.) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It does happen. While they are not PhD degrees, I have a friend who has two degrees, in Chemistry and in Journalism; he currently works for Science Friday as a producer.  -- Jayron  32  14:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At least one. I know someone with PhDs in both Nuclear Chemistry and Ethics. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And don't forget that at Oxford (and probably elsewhere), they award D.Phil degrees insttead of Ph.D's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.85.155 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PC problems
This question has been moved to the Computer Desk where it might benefit from more experienced help. 86.4.181.14 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cry, the beloved country (book)
Who is the skilled speaker who had been corrupted by his love for power?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried reading the book? Algebraist 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't remember these little details...Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is anyone going to help?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

--Sean 13:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer, if you don't remember the details, is to read the book again. When you are reading a book for a school assignment, you should read it many times.  The entire book should probably be read 4-5 times (though not all at once, you may just re-read certain passages once you are familiar with the structure of the book) before you "get" the entire book.  Reading it only once, and then trying to remember specific details OR to provide a critical analysis of certain parts is probably not going to work well.  Just re-read the book; its not that long and you can likely go through it much faster the second time, as you should be more familiar with it. -- Jayron  32  14:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be a good strategy in a perfect world, but I can't imagine that's a practical option for 99% of college students. Even completing all of one's assigned reading once can be a Herculean task... -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the name of this kind of puzzle?
I was looking at the Puzzle article and they didn't have anything like this ? What's the name/category of this type of puzzle? Searching on 'Picture Puzzle' redirects to the 15-puzzle, which is something different. These types of things show up on intelligence tests like the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, but they seem like puzzles to me. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a form of pattern recognition, so pattern recognition puzzle? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I found answers at Figure Reasoning Test and Raven's Progressive Matrices. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks more like a typical IQ test. SteveBaker (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Breaking a lease
I'm living in an apartment but I'm moving out. In May we signed a (one year) lease. I called the apartment place up and they said that I have to pay 2 months rent if I move out before May. Is there ANY way I can get out of this? It's a huge amount of money. Chris M. (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Some states have laws requiring military members to be able to get out of leases.20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that you're asking about how to (re)interpret a legal contract, you should consult a lawyer. The Reference Desk does not provide legal advice. &mdash; Lomn 14:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you didn't move out before last May, so you should be OK... unless you meant next May? In which get a lawyer.86.202.154.16 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)DT


 * I wasn't sure if there was some standard law that allows people to get out that you guys could point me to the article about it. (US, North Carolina). I'll see if I can find a lawyer who I can get advice from for free. The thing is, the goal (in asking here) is to NOT spend money. Chris M. (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't give legal advice, even if it is easy advice. You will need to find a lawyer. But do check your dates - last May has passed... --Tango (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound standard. Giving notice is a common requirement in lease/rental agreements, and the NC DOJ says it's your duty to pay all rent legally due under your lease . It may be (check your contract) that you just have to tell your landlord 2 months before you move out, so you can still live there for the next two months. We don't know the constraints on when you're moving out. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of legal ways of getting out of this, absolutely go find a lawyer. Only a lawyer is going to give you good advice about the law.
 * However you might try seeing if you can persuade the landlord to let you off the rent. I managed to talk one down to a month-and-a-half rent once in a similar situation. See if they will agree to refund the second month if they let the apartment inside a month. Maybe you can find someone who will take the apartment from you? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A lease is a legal contract. Read your lease to see what you have agreed to legally.  Most leases commit the tenant to paying rent for a full twelve months.  If that's what your lease says, to my knowledge in most if not all states, the landlord can require you to pay all twelve months whether you live there or not.  So your landlord is probably cutting you a break by offering to let you go with just two months' rent as a payoff.  To find out whether your state allows you to break a lease unilaterally (hard to imagine), you'd need to check with a lawyer, although, given lawyers' fees, depending on your rent, it might be cheaper to pay the landlord two months' rent.  Check your lease for language about subletting the apartment.  If your lease does not limit or forbid subletting, you could advertise for a sublettor to take over your rent, though you would still be legally liable for his or her rent payment and treatment of the apartment, so you'd want to check references and choose carefully.  You could also try to negotiate with the landlord to come up with a better deal.  For example, you could ask if the two month's payment could be waived if you found them a suitable (in their eyes) tenant before you leave.  You could also try pleading poverty and say that you are breaking the lease because you are unemployed and out of money, and you just don't have the money to pay them two month's rent but you can afford to give them [name a price] if that will get them not to pursue legal action.  They might opt to accept such a deal rather than incur legal costs of their own trying to get a court to order you to pay or garnish your wages.  But in any case, you put yourself legally at risk by violating any legal contract, including a lease, so if you can't or won't reach an agreement with the landlord, you should seek legal help from an attorney.  Marco polo (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Or find an alternative tenant who will complete the contractual term in your stead?


 * A drastic but effective course of action would be to declare bankruptcy, as that allows one to break leases, however, I can not give advice to your situation as to whether or not such a measure would be beneficial. Googlemeister (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You would then be unable to take out a new lease, in most cases. You would have to get someone to sign as guarantor. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As Tango's response points out, legal actions have legal consequences. While we can offer advice on negotiating a deal with the landlord, I don't think that we should be offering advice on legal actions such as declaring bankruptcy.  For those, you should consult an attorney and ask about consequences.  Marco polo (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Presumably (from the lack of any correction) the OP is in the USA. In the UK there are organisations such as the Citizen's Advice Bureau which are able to offer low-cost or free legal and similar advice relating to very common situations such as this. Also, some solicitors (= lawyers) offer advice free for the first half-hour, which may well suffice for such clear-cut situations. Are there not similar low-cost/free sources of advice in the USA (outside of The Bronx)? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the IP editor says just above, there are many lawyers who will do a free half-hour consult, call your local Law Society. And there are lots of tenant-advocacy websites and law firm websites that have FAQ pages about these issues. Make sure you find one in your state/city. In many jurisdictions, the only damages which can be claimed are actual damages, and the plaintiff has to act so as to mitigate their damages, i.e. try to find another tenant. So if the landlord has a tenant ready to go when you move out, you will owe them for the cost of a newspaper ad - but they won't tell you that. When I moved into my current apartment, I asked the building manager why no term lease and he chuckled and said "why bother, it's meaningless anyway" (there is a rental agreement that I can't make too much noise or set off nuclear weapons indoors, but no term to the lease). But it will all depend on your jurisdiction, many of which have specific residential tenancy laws. So check the local websites and see if you can get some free time for a quick chat with a lawyer. You may be able to draft your own letter to the landlord, but yeah, we don't offer specific legal advice. Franamax (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Legal Services Corporation was established in 1973 and still funds and supervises semi-independent offices and clinics all over the United States. Congress has forbidden them from instituting any more class-action lawsuits, but their purpose is to help those without the means to pay private lawyers with just the sort of bread-and-butter civil dispute that you're facing. Check the Internet and your local directory to see if there's a Legal Services for your area. Otherwise, as suggested above, see if you can get free help from the local Legal aid, where individual lawyers volunteer their services for the same purpose (civil disputes). —— Shakescene (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Landcrete, a building material in west africa
Hey,

on the website ghanadistricts.com, where you can find lots of data on all the districts in Ghana, I came along the term landcrete as a building material for houses. This site also mentions sandcrete as a building material, and it is easy to find information on this material. However, I could not find any info on what landcrete (presumably a weaker variation of sandcrete) is. Googling does not give any info, and further research on the ghanadistricts.com site didn't supply me with information either. Does anyone know what exactly landcrete is? What is it's composition, what is its strength, etc? Thanks in advance! 85.147.237.96 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)]]


 * According to this site, it's the same thing.--Shantavira|feed me 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. As I read the website however, there is actually a difference between sandcrete and landcrete: "Unlike landcrete blocks, sandcrete blocks have to be made upon a pallet, as they are too soft to be carried when freshly made." I did find an article on landcrete on the autonopedia website, http://autonopedia.org/buildings_and_shelter/Rural_Building/Landcrete_Blocks.html, so thanks to you I found what I was looking for. Great! 85.147.237.96 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)]]

Most popular mangas in the US?
Is that Bleach or Naruto or One piece? Or something else? Also I want to know about the popularity of Death Note and Detective Conan. What do you think are the reasons behind the popularity of these mangas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.0.7.166 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the above mentions, the reference desk isn't the place for opinions Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My interpretation was that when the OP said "popular", he/she meant "has the most readers / viewers / fans", which is objective and measurable and not a matter of opinion. I don't have any idea, unfortunately.  Tempshill (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but the "What do you think are the reasons behind..." is a leading question inferring opinion. Trying to reformulate it into a factual question not requiring opinion is proving difficult... -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy enough. "Have any views been published as to why these are as popular as they are?" Vimescarrot (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what the OP asked for though. If the OP wants that, he or she is welcome to ask for it and I wouldn't have said anything, but the OP didn't and I think it is important that the OP understands we are not going to tell him/her what we think here on the RD. If the OP doesn't understand there's a big difference between asking "what do you think" and "are there any reliable sources discussing the reasons for the popularity" or "what do the reliable sources say are the reasons for the popularity" then it is also important that they learn there is a big difference Nil Einne (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a list of highest selling manga in the U.S. for late 2008. Naruto leads the list while Death Note is #6. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"The fire is 71% contained"
In news reports on the August 2009 California wildfires, officials are describing the status of specific fires in terms of a percentage contained. Percentage of what? The perimeter length? --Anonymous, 18:53 UTC, September 10, 2009.
 * It is very common for politicians and journalists to use percentages without saying what it is a percentage of. Unless the percentage in question is 0 or 100 it is completely meaningless. There is no way to guess what they mean by it unless it actually says so in one of the articles. It could be perimeter length, or area, or even potential cost of damage, there is no way to know. We also don't know what the total is - it could be what is currently burning, or what has been burning at some point during the season. We also don't know what they mean by "contained" - if it was completely contained so it couldn't spread at all it would go out very quickly due to lack of fuel, so they must mean something more relaxed than that, but there is no way to know how much more relaxed. --Tango (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...except that it's a pretty standard term amongst firefighters. To contain a fire means to construct (or use existing) control lines around the perimeter of the fire and any spot fires that can be reasonably expected to halt the fire spread. The percent contained usually means the portion of the current fire perimeter adjacent to a control line, but if the fire is expected to increase much in size it could be the portion of the projected control line which will contain the final perimeter.
 * You might also hear "percent controlled". To control a fire means to construct a control line around the entire perimeter, spot fires, and interior islands which are to be saved, and remove any threats so that the control lines can reasonably be expected to hold under foreseeable conditions.&mdash;eric 21:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Anon, 07:38 UTC, September 11, 2009.

Jeering a Presidential speech on the floor of the House
I know that unlike Prime Minister's Questions in the United Kingdom House of Commons, decorum is the order of the day in the US Congress. Has there ever been a case in history where a Presidential speech of a joint session of Congress was booed and heckled, before last night? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I was shocked when I heard the "You lie" followed by booing. They're acting like five-year-olds. Anyway, it's happened before, but by protesters, not a member of Congress, and definitely not an internationally televised speech. Opposers of the (last) President Bush did it on a few occasions (cf this Huffington Post article). Xenon54 / talk / 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But speaking as a regular Brit watcher of the Bearpit PMQ's I have to say how impressed I was by Mr. Obama's handling of the situation when he clearly heard the insult, and pointedly pointed to the belligerent perpetrator. Whatever his electorate think of his politics at future elections, I hope they also recall his appalling behaviour (the belligerent) for which abuse he would have been ordered by The Speaker and removed by the Sergeant at Arms from the Chamber of the British House of Commons until such time as he voluntarily recanted his insulting remark in full frontal view of the Parliament Assembled - failing which, he would have been prevented from re-entering the House. Though I suspect he would continue to collect his bloated salary, holidays, pension and expenses, not forgetting his subsidised bar and restaurant bills.92.8.200.162 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently Representative Wilson's Democratic opponent in the upcoming election has gotten a big uptick in campaign contributions since the outburst. I should have been more specific in my question, I was really asking whether a President had ever been heckled by members of Congress.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be worth pointing out that while PMQs does tend to be vociferous, direct accusation of lying is avoided because it's non-Parliamentary language and the Speaker will require the Member to withdraw it. There was a striking exception on 14 July 1994 when Peter Hain had only just been called to ask a question when Rod Richards yelled "Liar!" at him at the top of his voice. Read here for what happened next. (The disagreement was over whether Hain had correctly notified three Conservative MPs about his intention to criticise their private financial interests in the previous day's debate) Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It think there is something of a distinction between the president, addressing congress and the PM's question time. Firstly, the role of the president is in many ways ceremonially closer to the role of (say) the Queen.  If someone had interrupted the Queen's address to parliament with "You lie!" - they'd be in incredibly deep doo-doo!  Secondly, the PM's question time is not a formal presentation from one person to a group - it's a discussion and it's informal by its very nature.  When one person is speaking a formal speech - it's really rude to interrupt in any way - but calling the person a liar is beyond the pale.  Booing isn't good either - but at least it's a non-specific, general expression of dislike - that's a LONG way from calling someone a liar in front of the entire congress and an enormous TV audience.  Finally, the President was (technically) invited to speak - there is an expectation of respect for someone who has been brought into the group.  With the PM, he's working there every day - he's not even elected by the people - only by his own party.  But notably, even in the extremely heated conditions of PM's question time - nobody calls anyone else a liar that directly without getting into a ton of trouble.


 * Actually the President was not lying. That's not a matter of opinion.  You can go and read the the text of the proposed bills that are out there - they all say that illegal aliens don't get coverage - and that's what the president said.  They say it in clear, unambiguous language.  Ergo, the president didn't lie and Wilson committed the sin of being impolite as well as that of lying himself!


 * What Wilson is actually trying to communicate (and god knows he's doing a terrible job of it) is that the bills do not contain language explaining how illegal aliens who might hypothetically try to use the new system to get free healthcare will be tracked down - and what punishment would be inflicted if they broke the law. That language was indeed yanked - which some believe is an attempt to sneak in a loophole for illegal immigrants into the law.  That's not an unreasonable complaint...


 * ...unless you dig down and find the facts.


 * The real reason for removing those provisions from the bill is actually rather a solid one - based on solid past history - which it would be nice if the opponents would take the time to consider: In the past, exactly such a citizenship verification rule was imposed upon Medicaid in an attempt to "clamp down on abuse".  What happened was that when this verification procedure came into force, only SEVEN people were ever found to have been cheating and EIGHT THOUSAND legitimate US Citizens were denied coverage.  The Medicaid verification scheme had to be abandoned under a hail of criticism.  What kind of idiot builds a provision into a new bill - knowing full well that based on the best available evidence, it'll fail?  Yanking those provisions was a good decision - based on sound historical precedent.  Wilson is entitled to fail to recognize that - but translating that into calling the president a liar is going WAY too far.


 * The very MOST you could say of that clause in the President's proposal would be "You aren't skipping some of the more subtle ramifications!" - but I guess that's too many syllables for a 'sound bite'.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you really stayed on-topic there, nicely done. kmccoy (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Two observations: One, the Republicans are disenfranchised and increasingly desperate, pulling out all the stops and being as vicious as they know how to be. Two, Baker's comments are pretty similar to what he wrote on the talk page of that congressman, and which was deleted by an IP address who appears to be a sock or mimic of the indef'd user Axmann8, a skinhead neo-Nazi white supremacist Obama-hater (that's how he portrayed himself, don't blame me for those words). This is really getting beyond the realm of the reference desk and into talk page debate - as well as a WP:ANI report on the IP and Axmann8, which I did already, just FYI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Er - I didn't write anything on any talk page of any congressman. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of this which was kind of similarly worded, though actually posted by an IP. Same general editorializing. However, my complaint isn't with that IP nor you, but with Axmann8. So this section is kind of veering away from being a help desk entry and towards being a debate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In case you're still wondering, see this article in Slate (magazine): . Makeemlighter (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good article, thanks, Makeme. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that GOPers don’t know how to be -- or don't believe in -- a loyal opposition. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A British gentleman Sir Robert Armstrong would respond to such a boorish interjection with understatement "A misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth." President Obama can take comfort from the 3rd President Thomas Jefferson "The man who fears no truths has nothing to fear from lies."Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To be fair, "loyal opposition" hasn't been accurate for the (president's) opposition party, Democrat or Republican, since at least 1993. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because a handful of morons automatically discredits the entire Republican Party, right? Makes sense. Makes perfect logical sense.--WaltCip (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where the 1993 date comes from. It was way back in 1964 when Nelson Rockefeller was booed off the stage at the Republican Convention by Goldwater delegates.  (Of course, the current crowd repudiated Goldwater in the last years of his life because he didn't believe it was the government's job to inflict religion on the public.)  Goldwater was a person I could disagree with but admire.  Not many such left. PhGustaf (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given how routinely one can expect very bad ideas in such speeches to get thunderous applause, I asked a few years ago (in another place) whether any member of Congress had ever had the decency to boo, and was told that they sometimes "sit on their hands" as a way of explicitly not applauding. (I'm not advocating "You lie!", unless in response to scapegoating, but "Folly!" is entirely appropriate. Politics is not a school play.) —Tamfang (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The booing
It was my impression that the booing after "You lie !" was a condemnation of that outburst, and not of any part of Obama's speech. Am I correct ? If the boos came from Republicans only, then I may be wrong. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If, on the other hand...
This is NOT the forum to actually discuss this, but can you imagine the ruckus that would have ensued if a Democrat had said that to a Republican President? In my opinion, the reaction would be similar to the one raised by parts of the Muslim community when that cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban was published a few years ago. Ugh... --DaHorsesMouth (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Edward Stratford
The above was a horse jockey and trainer during 1880-1912 era.

We are trying to locate a photo .We understand he accompanied Richard Mason then NZ GREATEST HORSE TRAINER TO australia with horse called Lochiel where he beat Carbine the greatest horse of this era.We need your assistance.ORRSOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.228.242 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article on the horse Carbine. Both Carbine and Lochiel are named in the pedigree of a horse called Rogilla. You could ask a local newspaper if they have a picture of Lochiel winning the race. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)