Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 February 13

= February 13 =

multiple shakles in a rigging scheme
What is the porper configuration for back to back shakles i a rigging scheme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.190.32 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What sort of "rigging scheme" are you referring to? Is this to do with BDSM?  Dismas |(talk) 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Highly likely to be a rope bondage position. Two subjects placed back to back, tied together then hoisted into the air using an overhead pulley or block and tackle. This is an advanced type of rope bondage and should only be attempted by someone knowledgeable and experienced. The fact that the OP is posting here and not on a specialist board indicates that they do not have the experience or knowledge to safely perform this. They should go to a series of local rope bondage demonstration lectures and gain much more knowledge and experience before they even consider this. Exxolon (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the question is not about rigging as the term is used in sailboating? --173.49.16.103 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm maybe Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a manual about rigging hardware including shackles and here is a school that trains Concert, Theatrical and Entertainment Riggers. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If improper rigging resulted in a fatality, how soon would rigger mortis set in? Edison (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My guess this has to do with sail-boating or trucking. Bus stop (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada and Olympics
Whats are the chances of Canada hosting another Summer Olympics and which city will be the one hosting it? Especially, since their 1st one (Montreal, 1976) and there only one was a totally disaster for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs) 01:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have any crystal balls, so your guess is as good as ours. The Olympic bids article may be of interest.  Dismas |(talk) 01:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would they want to? Our news has been full of Canadians moaning about the expense and disruption - this may be because Londoners are already moaning about the same things with two years to go. Alansplodge (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Toronto had a pretty good bid being organized for 2012 but cancelled after Vancouver was awarded 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto75780 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for all of your answers to my question. Interesting and I'm highly aware of what goes on during bid process. Other hand I vaguely remember that Toronto wanted to host 2012 Summer Olympics during 2012 bid process. New York City also wanted host 2012 games, but in the end they didn't get it. Have to say I would love to see both New York City and Toronto to host games some time in the future.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless something happens to doom the bid, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the 2020 Olympics will go to an African city, likely either Cairo or Johannesburg. The IOC is on record as wanting to put an Olympics in Africa.  Woogee (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The crystal ball is cloudy, but it would be surprising if the next Canadian city to make a bid wasn't Toronto. Vancouver is hosting the Winters right now, Montreallers would never stand for another bid, probably the same applies to Quebec, and there probably aren't any others big enough. Canada is too spread out for a group of cities to get together and make a joint bid (except maybe Montreal and Quebec, but see above). Plus Toronto has got the Pan Am games, so they've got experience. However we're probably talking twenty years in the future. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Msc syllebus of chemistry
What is the Msc syllebus on chemistry of Boston University.Supriyochowdhury (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you try searching? Boston University appears to offer an MA in Chemistry.  The details are here.  If you want any further syllabus details, they are the best people to ask.  Ka renjc 11:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mcs
what is the Msc syllebus on chemistry of Harvard University.Supriyochowdhury (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you try searching? Harvard's information page on postgraduate Chemistry programs is here. They "do not offer a terminal Masters degree" but a PhD is available. If you want more detailed syllabus information, they are the best people to ask.  Ka renjc 11:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To explain a little deeper, Harvard (like many schools) does not offer a Masters degree in many hard sciences as a normal graduating degree. If you are a graduate student in Chemistry, you should be enrolled in a PhD program.  Many such schools grant a Masters degree to students who do not complete their thesis, but still complete their coursework, often derisively known as the "consolation Masters", but students are expected to be working towards their PhD.  Such special masters degrees are usually automatically granted to students after their second or third year in their PhD program, or they are granted to students when, after several years of research, it becomes apparent that it will be impossible to write a thesis (for example, if someone "scoops" their research and publishes first, or their research ends up at a dead end).  I have known several people who have such "consolation masters" degrees for those reasons.  -- Jayron  32  19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hard cheese without the saturated fat?
I like hard cheese, but I do not like the very high amounts of saturated fat it has in it. Is there any kind of cheese without any saturated fat in it, perhaps artificially produced? (Compressing cottage cheese perhaps?) I would not want to eat any hydrogenated fat either, or more than trace amounts of trans-fat. Thanks 92.29.55.65 (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As an ex-dieter of many years standing, I share your frustration! The only thing I found that worked was to use very strongly flavoured cheeses (such as Parmesan or Cheddar) in small quantities, thus reducing your intake of saturated fats but also ensuring you get some of the nutrients (such as calcium and Vitamin D) contained in hard cheeses. The hard cheeses with the least fat, such as Edam or Gouda, simply aren't tasty enough for me. Commercially available reduced-fat cheeses are likely to contain trans- or hydrogenated fats. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Half-fat cheddar is available in the UK from any supermarket. You'd struggle to taste the difference too, but it costs a bit more than bog-standard mousetrap cheese. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, they're the "commercially available reduced-fat cheeses" I was mentioning above. You can tell the difference - they seem more rubbery to me, and a quick read of the label puts me off them. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some are better than others in my experience. Alansplodge (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cordoba Central Railway Company Limited
I have a document dated 25th June 1932, River Plate House, Finsbury Circus, E.C.2

To the Holders of the Companys Debenture Stocks and Income Stocks

Mr Justice EVE Chancery Division

In the matter of Cordoba Central Railway Company Limited and In the matter of the COMPANIES ACT 1929

nO 00457 OF 1932

Can you help with the history of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dal66 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See the article Córdoba Central Railway. Financial problems forced the sale of the British owned company to the Argentine government in 1939. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Those airline on-time statistics
It would appear, but I have not been able to find a definitive statement, that the on-time statistic reported for the U.S. major airlines is a binary value: OnTime means within 15 minutes, Not OnTime for everything else. Thus, being 3 hours late (or being cancelled completely) both count the same as being 16 minutes late.

Is this actually documented someplace? I can find lots of reports of what the statistics are; a few sites state the within 15 minutes phrase and thus imply the statement; but nothing that actually documents the latter statement. DaHorsesMouth (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "A flight is counted as "on time" if it operated less than 15 minutes later the scheduled time shown in the carriers' Computerized Reservations Systems (CRS). Arrival performance is based on arrival at the gate. Departure performance is based on departure from the gate." (From the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics) --- OtherDave (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

When did Suffield, MA become Suffield, CT?
When did Suffield, MA become Suffield, CT? I am doing genealogy and need to know which colony or state to put with Suffield at various dates, please. Thanks - Janice e-mail deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.2.203 (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Suffield historical society website is here: http://www.suffieldhistoricalsociety.org/ it says they switched states in 1749. You could also email Arthur Sikes Jr., Suffield Historical Society Trustee at ArtSikes[at]aol[dot]com
 * SteveBaker (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have taken the liberty to make his e-mail address a bit more obscure... don't want the man getting more spam than he already does, eh? If you feel this is an intrusion uncalled for, feel free to undo. --Ouro (blah blah) 22:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic but: (a) His email address is already perfectly visible - so spammers who crawl the web will have found it already and (b) you don't seriously think the evil spammers didn't think to convert [at] and [dot] to the corresponding characters? Evil!=Stupid (c) My email address is on LOTS of web sites - it's everywhere on a bazillion forums, web sites, etc and has been for 10 years or more...but my wife's address is almost nowhere online...she gets about the same amount of spam as I do.  QED. SteveBaker (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually had similar thoughts cross my mind when I did that edit, but I also thought-- what the heck. Point taken, Steve. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In his 2008 book How the States got their Shapes, Mark Stein (who doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article) says that the Massachusetts-Connecticut border was disputed until 1804 when the two states agreed on the present line. Suffield and three other towns in the disputed zone declared their intent to be considered part of Connecticut, and when the border was settled, they got their way. --Anonymous, 05:38 UTC, February 14, 2010.

Right of way
Okay, here's the situation: Eastwest Road is a through-street - no stop signs, traffic lights or anything. Southnorth Road intersects Eastwest at a right angle and has stop signs so that cars crossing Eastwest in either direction are obliged to stop. Now, let's say we're in a car on Southnorth and we're going to cross Eastwest, continuing straight on Southnorth. We pull up and stop at the stop sign and see that another car, travelling in the opposite direction on Southnorth, is already at the intersection and indicating a left turn. We all sit and wait until Eastwest traffic is clear. Who has right of way? I was taught that it goes in order of arrival at the intersection (i.e. the other guy should go first), but every time I sit there waiting for the other guy, it turns out that he figures I have the right of way because I'm going straight. We're in Ontario, Canada. Is there a law relevant to this, or maybe one of those unwritten rules of driving? The norm here seems to be "straight has right of way", so I'll just get used to it, but it seems very odd to me. Matt Deres (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)  S-N Rd.            │ ¦^│ │ ¦ │           ⌂│ ¦ │             │░¦ │      «¯¯¯¯¯¯ █   ¯¯¯¯¯¯ E-W Rd.______  `  ______» │ ¦ │            │ ¦ │⌂             │ ¦█│             │ ¦░│             │v¦ │  Map made by Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd write to the council and ask them to put in a roundabout. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Social conventions differ between different regions, which causes some confusion. In California, social conventions generally hold that straight-through people get preference over left-turn people (though there are exceptions), but that wasn't the case in Massachusetts, if I remember correctly.  Don't worry about it - do what feels right, because the worst that can happen is you'll get honked at.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is my understanding of general procedures in the US: The stop signs are there so that Southnorth Rd. traffic does not intrude on the right-of-way of vehicles on Eastwest Rd.  Since all Eastwest traffic is clear, the only conflict is between the cars on Southnorth.  The car turning left across opposing traffic must always yield right-of-way to opposing traffic going straight (or even turning right).  The only time that "it goes in order of arrival at the intersection" is when the intersection is a posted 4-way stop. --Thomprod (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In all Canadian provinces, the car going STRAIGHT has right of way priority over the car turning LEFT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto75780 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and similarly throughout the UK (though we would be turning right). It seems strange to me that an alternative rule would be possible.  Are there really regions where turners have precedence?    D b f i r s   00:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the US (at least) the "The person who arrives first has priority" rule only applies to four-way stops. In the situation you describe, the person going straight has the right of way unless the other car is already moving past the stop sign when you arrive at the stop sign.  But these detailed rules vary from place to place - so you should really find out the rules in your local jurisdiction - and no matter what, drive defensively - don't assume that the other driver knows the rules. It's better to be alive than to be right but dead! SteveBaker (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Contrary to Ludwigs2's memory, this rule applies in Massachusetts, too, according to the driver's manual. However, Massachusetts drivers are often unaware of or unconcerned with such rules.  In practice, it depends on things such as who is driving, what they're driving, and who moves first.  For example, old ladies in compact cars generally yield to young males in large pick-up trucks, especially when the young male's vehicle starts moving.  The only way that the old lady would go first, regardless of the law, is if the young male waits and either flashes his high-beams or motions to indicate that he is yielding right-of-way (even if legally he never had it).  Hopefully, it is not so complicated in Ontario.  Marco polo (talk) 03:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the BC Motor Vehicles Act, in British Columbia, if there is sufficient space for the left turning vehicle to safely turn, he may. Once he begins, regardless of what controls may exist, he has the right of way. If you arrive at the same time, the idea is that you figure it out between the two of you.  There is no legal preference.  But in your case, he has the right of way.  I forgot what section it is, though.  I'm sorry. Aaronite (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant Ontario law is the Highway Traffic Act, which can be downloaded under the "current consolidated statutes" section of www.e-laws.gov.on.ca, and the relevant subsections are 136(1) and 141(5).


 * 136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an intersection,
 * (a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none, then immediately before entering the intersection; and
 * (b) shall yield the right of way to traffic in the intersection or approaching the intersection on another highway so closely that to proceed would constitute an immediate hazard and, having so yielded the right of way, may proceed.


 * 141. (5) No driver or operator of a vehicle in an intersection shall turn left across the path of a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction unless he or she has afforded a reasonable opportunity to the driver or operator of the approaching vehicle to avoid a collision.

So the stop sign becomes irrelevant once the two cars have stopped and waited for traffic on Eastwest Road. They are effectively approaching the intersection at the same time and therefore 141(5) requires the one turning left to yield (although it does not actually use that word). Thus, Matt's instinct is wrong.

--Anonymous, 05:57 UTC, February 14, 2010.


 * In Seattle, everyone assumes everyone else has the right of way, and thus no one ever gets anywhere.Pfly (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ... unlike in Massachusetts where (according to the claim above) everyone assumes that they have right of way unless the other vehicle is bigger! Are there more collisions at intersections in that state?
 * ... Or, most of East Asia, where the number of wheels and weight of the vehicle determines right-of-way. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, everyone, especially Anon for quoting an actual regulation. And to Cuddlyable for the nice diagram; I think I can see my house there! I've been driving for years but have seldom had to face this situation so often. My "Eastwest Road" is a very busy street (so it's often the case that traffic on "Southnorth" is backed up a bit) and "Southnorth" is also fairly busy, so it's not unusual for there to be traffic both turning and going straight, etc. I guess my confusion came, as others mentioned above, with the rules for a four-way stop. This was combined with puzzlement over why turning left is such a horrible act; both the person going straight and the person turning left are going to cross all lanes of perpendicular traffic, so using FIFO would seem fairer. Well, I know better now, so thanks! Matt Deres (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If each street has one lane each way, the straight-through person has conflicts with two lanes of traffic while the left turner has conflicts with all three others. It's only when wider streets are involved that a left-turner may conflict with fewer lanes, and then only if you don't consider lane changes before and after the turn.  By the way, that was a law I quoted, not a regulation. --Anonymous, 21:57 UTC, February 14, 2010.


 * If the intersection was a four-way stop, then the guy turning left would have the right of way. Otherwise you get to go first. As far as I remember this is how we learned it in driving school in Ontario. But I would probably sit there too, as confused as you. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a similar confusion in the UK with "mini-roundabouts" where a similar "first come, first go" rule seems to apply. Using the Highway Code can result in stalemate where everyone sits there giving way to everyone else.    D b f i r s   09:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A bit tangential, but I've always relied on the philosophy of my long-ago driver's ed instructor: You never have the right of way, you can only yield the right of way. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Watching tv
Would it be possible, assuming average sleep requirements and average life expectancy, for someone to watch every episode of every television program produced up to this point in time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.27 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Without even doing any back-of-envelope calculations, I say the answer is a most definite NO. Just think of how many different stations there are, how many different programs and episodes there have been, how long TV has been around (well over 70 years in some cases) - and that's just English-speaking countries.  No way.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * George Carlin, in a lengthy routine about radio ("Wonderful W-I-N-O-o-o-o..."), included a fake ad in which you could order "every record ever made!" TV in its early years only broadcast for part of the day, but even at that and if home recording existed, you couldn't watch every TV show ever made. Even considering downtime for reruns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it would be just barely possible for a single major channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto75780 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I didn't think it was possible but I just wanted to check
 * Well may be you can have several TVs running at once! One on each channel. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking that. That's about the only way you could have done it. Might be kind of hard to concentrate on 3 shows (assuming 1960s TV scenario). It's tough enough to concentrate on 2. Although perpetual channel surfing is kind of in the neighborhood, it's kinda like cheating, as watching little time slices of episodes is not the same thing as watching the episode. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

MLB - World Series
How is it fair that one of the divisions of the AL has only 4 teams and one of the NL divisions has 6 teams? Why don't they move one to the other division/league to make all MLB divisions have 5 teams. This is especially outragious considering only 8 out of 30 teams make the playoffs and winning your division in the regular season has higher importance than in the NHL and NBA. In the NHL and NBA, if every game's outcome is random, all teams have an equal chance of make the playoffs, and winning the championship. In the MLB, teams in the divisions with 4 and 6 teams are statistically significantly more/less likely to make the playoffs, and to win their league, and the World Series, especially compared to teams in the other unique division. Does this issue apear in other major leagues, namely, the NFL and CFL? Do any of the leagues where this is an issue make exceptions to the playoff qualification rules to solve this problem and put all teams on a level playing field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto75780 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've failed to notice this. You are absolutely right. Tuesday, I'll make some calls and see what can be done about this. Thanks for the insight. John Zajc (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.100.214.133 (talk) (Blocked as sock)
 * In the case of baseball, if there were 6 divisions of 5 teams each, both leagues would have an odd number of teams. This would require an interleague series taking place at all times, as teams play just about every day during the regular season. This is considered more problematic than having two leagues with an even number of teams, but unequal divisions. The justification is that the cream will rise to the top, and that if a team finishes 1st in a 4-team division (the AL West), chances are it deserves a shot at the postseason, while a team that is 3rd in the 6-team division (the NL Central), is unlikely to be a serious contender for the World Series. The NFL used to have divisions with unequal numbers of teams, but did not adjust playoff structure as a result either. --Xuxl (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that the AL went and changed the rules of the game. What self-respecting, baseball-loving team would want to leave the National League? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC) (Go Cubs!)
 * The source of the "problem" is that the leagues need to have an even number of teams. Y'know, cause it takes two teams to play a game. Right now there are 30 teams in 2 leagues, but 15-15 is not an option, so they go for 16-14. In the infinite wisdom of the baseball gods, it was decided that each league should have three divisions, which pretty much forces you to have divisions of 5, 5,and 6 and 5, 5, and 4. If MLB were to expand again, it's most likely that the AL would get two teams, creating divisions of 5, 5, and 6. Now, the whole issue would also go away if interleague play was to be done on a constant basis, but this is unlikely for historical and logistical reasons. In my opinion, it's probably more likely to have the leagues dissolve as separate entities and reshuffle the entire arrangement, though by "more likely" I mean "slightest glimmer of a vague possibility" versus "just not in the plans". When the AL expands, all will be well. Matt Deres (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They only need to have an even number of teams if there are dates when all teams are expected to play. The CFL for many years had 9 teams total -- 4 in the Eastern Conference (later Division) and 5 in the Western.  The NHL had a total of 7 teams at one time and a total of 21 teams at another time.  Concern with unequal size divisions is rare.  Teams tend to be more concerned with which teams they share a division with -- either wanting weak opponents so they have a better chance of winning the division, or wanting opponents that will attract more fans to their games.
 * Anyway, teams do not all have equal abilities, and it's entirely possible that competition in one division will be much tougher than another no matter whether they are equal size or not. In fact, there's been at least one case where they were deliberately made unequal.  When the NHL expanded from 6 to 12 teams in 1967, it put the 6 new teams in a separate division, the Western Division, thus guaranteeing that one of them would make the Stanley Cup finals no matter how weak the division was compared to the established Eastern Division teams.  The 12-team league lasted for 3 years and in all 3 years the Eastern Division team (Montreal or Boston) won the Stanley Cup Final 4 games to 0 (in each case against St. Louis). (Of course there are also leagues with First and Second Divisions and a promotion system, but that's not what I'm talking about here.) --Anonymous, 06:12 UTC, February 14, 2010.
 * The difference between baseball and other sports is that every team plays about 28 games per month (they get one day off every two weeks or so). At that rate, there is almost no time when they could work out two teams that just wouldn't play.  No team has any down time with which to make the "odd number of teams" work.  So, as already noted, a 5-5-5/5-5-5 arrangement would require that teams from opposite leagues play each other all the time, not just during the two weeks per year designated as "interleague" weeks; entirely possible but for traditional reasons unlikely to happen.  It certainly make more 'logistical' sense to just do it that way, but the people interested in preserving the "history and tradition of the game" would never let something like that happen.  Oddly enough, other baseball leagues also have weird divisional alignments, also for historical reasons.  C.f. the AAA International League which has a 6-4-4 alignment rather than the more logical 5-5-4 (or even 7-7).  -- Jayron  32  19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The NFL had an odd number of teams during 1999-2001, after they had added their 31st team (the Browns) and before they added their 32nd team (the Texans). They had already been doing a bye week since 1990, and it became a necessity during that three-year period. The NFL had 15 in each conference for several years in the late 90s, but they play many inter-conference games, so that was not an issue. If MLB ever realigns along NFL lines, it might become "fairer" than it is now. But as with any sport, the bottom line is you have to win. The NCAA basketball tournament, every year, leaves a few "borderline" teams behind from their 65-team chart. It's just how things go. (Let's not get into the BCS, which is an abomination unto itself.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition of "borderline" is going to change when the NCAA expands the tournanment to 96 teams!. Woogee (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eek. Why not just double it again, to 192, and invite pretty much everyone. Unfortunately, that would reduce the NIT to a couple of all-star teams from neighborhoods, playing H-O-R-S-E or half-court or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons to the CFL and NFL should be taken under advisement; baseball teams play every day while football teams only play once a week. Giving a linebacker an extra week off is a gift; throwing an extra three or four days off straight would not carry the same benefit to baseball players and would throw the pitching rotation out of whack. Nobody in baseball would want to have leagues with an odd number of teams. Matt Deres (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Another question that could be asked is, "How fair is it that MLB plays about twice as many games as NHL and NBA, yet only 8 teams qualify for the post-season?" Baseball has an incredibly long season, playing nearly every day for 6 months, and the post-season runs barely a month. Consider the old days, where 16 teams (20 in the 1960s) would play 140-154-162 games and only have TWO qualifiers for the post-season "tournament", which consisted of one round, a best-4-of-7 World Series. In baseball the post-season was almost like an afterthought. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Computer gaming good for the mind?
I believe gaming is nothing more than a waste of time and energy so I've been abstaining from it consecutively for over two months now. But since then, I seem to be doing worse at school work, frequently making stupid mistakes on exams and homeworks and having a generally harder time with being on top of coursework. I also seem unable to derive satisfaction from my academic work and have a lowered short-term memory and decision-making skills. Are some, though not all, people actually better off by playing computer games? Long time ago, I read somewhere that no play but only work creates dull mind and that a playful mind is a necessary requirement for being smart/creative/genius. I suspect this has something to do with my decline in academic performance. So I'm considering if I should resume my computer gaming to get my playful mind back (while making sure to keep gaming to a minimum, not like over 10 hours a week as I've done in the past when I played games). But before I really decide to get into gaming again, I want to know if there is any research or evidence that actually deals with this, because my worse academic performance might merely be due to some other factors like difficulty of courses I'm taking this semester instead of being due to stopping playing games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my day we never had computer games. But we were happy (video) which is what really counts. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are definitely studies about the effect of gaming on the brain (Googling "video games effect on brain" turns up lots of studies—a nice general article on the ups and downs of such conclusions is this one). Some suggest they help with learning, but you'd really be hard-pressed to know if that applies in your situation, with your life, your brain, your games. These kinds of studies make meaningful data only when applied to large groups of people. As an individual, such studies will not be able to tell you anything about your own situation, your own habits, your own performance, your own life. Your university likely has ample mental health resources available for discussing things like this—you would probably get better, more personalized, more sensible responses from them than anyone on the internet. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Any activity that requires concentration is "good for the mind", so yes computer gaming is. There are some side effects to very prolonged periods of play however (as there are to any activity).--92.251.207.52 (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What activity isn't a complete waste of time? There are good games and bad games, but, as often overlooked by anti-game people, there are also crap books and good books (I'm not suggesting classics are good, by the way, or that silly books are bad; just that there is a broad range in quality within each genre).  Don't dismiss any form of media for any other reason than personal preference, or your just denying yourself some potentially great stuff. Aaronite (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Moderation in all things. Video game behavioral effects and Video game controversy may be of interest. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, humbly, that the local pro-gaming contingent posting here do not really know what they are talking about. Again, if you are finding your academic studies troublesome, I recommend speaking with one of the many professionals who are no doubt at your educational institution, rather than listening to fools on the internet. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The decision to give up gaming should be balanced against what you're going to do with the spare time you gain back. Going to use the time to study, or read good books, or engage in challenging conversation? Then the time spent gaming is probably of little use to improving your brain. On the other hand, if you're going to use those extra ten hours or whatever to drink yourself into a stupor or watch Fox network television? Well, maybe firing up Oblivion would be a better option. Regardless of whether gaming or reading or anything improves your brain in some generic way, poor grades should probably be discussed with a teacher or counsellor. Matt Deres (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)