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

= September 13 =

wheat in a field
Hello. I live in Cambridge and every morning I pass a wheat field, which looks to be about 20 acres. The wheat has not been harvested; I can see weeds growing in the field, and I'm sure I can see it turning black with mould. Why would a farmer plant wheat and then not harvest it? Robinh (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can speculate: 1) something has befallen the farmer(s) rending them physically unable to harvest the wheat. 2) The price of wheat has fluctuated such that it is not profitable to harvest and take to market. 3) A subsidy has had the same effect as #2. 4) Something not readily observable to your eye happened to the wheat making it unfit for sale/consumption (infection, blight, whatever). That's what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other possibilities. Your best bet is to just stop by and ask! Masked Booby (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In many parts of the UK, it has been too wet to harvest. See this news item.--Shantavira|feed me 10:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ... and on the few dry days recently, the combine harvesters have probably been fully booked. Not many farmers can afford to have £100,000+ worth of machinery lying idle for most of the year, so the harvesting is often done by contractors who may well give preference to their biggest customers.  You could volunteer to offer your services with a scythe and an old-fashioned threshing machine!    D b f i r s   12:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your combines only cost roughly $150,000? They cost about $400,000 here.  Googlemeister (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Field sizes in the UK are typically rather smaller than those in the US, due to the differing histories of land settlement and agriculture in the two countries: consequently UK combines and similar machines are also typically smaller, and therefore cheaper. That said, Dbfirs did write "one hundred thousand pounds plus, which suggests a (doubtless very approximate) lower bound but no upper bound :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) ::::::Yes, the OP mentioned a 20-acre field, so a large American-style combine harvester would hardly be appropriate (though they are used in some areas). Second-hand combines can be purchased for varying prices from £3000 upwards, though I wouldn't advise purchase of the cheapest unless you are an expert mechanic.    D b f i r s   16:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just noticed the field is only 20 acres. It is rare here to see any fields smaller then 40, and most are either 80 or 160 acres.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The appearance of the feild may not give you the best estimate about the quality of the grain. What you are looking at is the outside parts of the grain, the husks, so to speak, the grain may well be fine tucked inside. Richard Avery (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(OP). Well I spoke too soon! As I cycled home just now, about half of the field had been harvested. Thanks for all your answers. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So they probably were waiting for a combine to be available.   D b f i r s   16:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Downsides to living in Portland, Oregon?
From reading the article here, one gets the impression that Portland, Oregon is a wonderful place to live. Would someone be willing to provide some potential downsides? My PacNW travel experience is limited to Seattle... Masked Booby (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Seattle, it is rainy. It is also right next to Mount Hood considered to be "...the Oregon volcano most likely to erupt".  Otherwise, I thought it was one of the nicer US cities.  Astronaut (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I love the Pacific Northwest. In the summer.  Which is the only time I've been there.  Not sure I'd be so happy the rest of the year. --Trovatore (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Portland, Oregon is revealing to me. Not the place I'd consider ideal particularly during the winter. Auckland is bad enough but this sounds worse. Of course different people may have different perspectives. Semi OT but on the plus side Transportation in Portland, Oregon reveals PT isn't bad and it's cycling friendly Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have missed this part of the article Portland is a city located in the Northwestern United States. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As opposed to, say, a place where they hang you for pot? --Trovatore (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't live there anymore and not sure if I'd recommend Malaysia in general as a great place to live at the current time, but yes, you're right it's better then the US in that area amongst others Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not better. Seriously.  It's a seriously illiberal country.  The ideology of its former leader belongs to the ashbin of history. --Trovatore (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, to be fair, I was thinking of this jerk. I don't know anything about the current leader. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for collapsing the discussion, I planned to do it myself. In terms of the general point, I don't particularly think much of Mahathir myself (although would note he hasn't been the leader since 2003), but he's no worse then a number of other leaders, including very recent American ones but this clearly isn't the time or place so I'm ending my involvement in this discussion now Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * More seriously, "Portland's crime rate is above the national average in all categories except for murder" doesn't sound like a great positive. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I find Portland quite pleasant. Yes, it is depressingly gray in the winter ("gray" more than "rainy"--like Seattle the actual rainfall is limited--it's the relentlessness of cloudy overcast winter days that gets old). In contrast the summers in the region are ridiculously nice. Going on the experience of some friends of mine, it might be slightly difficult to get a good job, at least these days. Some friends have complained that it is hard to get "rooted" in Portland--and the Pacific Northwest in general. The people are generally friendly, but somehow "turned inward". I've heard the region compared to Nordic countries--friendly people but somehow hard to assimilate into, to really set down roots. I wouldn't put much emphasis on Mount Hood being likely to erupt. It could happen, sure. But it's not close enough to bury the city in lava or anything. Earthquakes are more likely to cause harm, but they are relatively infrequent and probably more likely in Seattle than Portland. Pfly (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're into big-time sports, you're kind of limited to the Portland Trail Blazers or trips to Corvallis or Eugene or Seattle. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, how bad a winter is depends what kind of winter you're used to. I live on the Canadian prairies, so compared to -40 weather with tons of snow which is warmed by chinooks and turns into tons of mucky slush only to be snowed on again? The winter climate in Portland sounds pretty darn nice to me! But if you currently live in, say, Texas or southern California, a relentless cloudy greyness probably does sound depressing. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

molecular gastronomy resources
I'm looking for good websites/blogs which focus on the actual nuts and bolts of molecular cooking. I'm familiar with khymos.org of course, but I'm looking more for specific recipes, how-tos, and techniques. Similar to what I will find in the elBulli book that a friend is lending me, or the Fat Duck cookbook (though the latter is less about truly transformative cuisine and more about doing things very, very carefully). → ROUX   ₪  09:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * André Gayot has some links and resources, but I have to confess I cannot judge their quality. ---Sluzzelin talk  22:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

YouTube
Not sure if this belongs here or on the computing desk, so feel free to move it if deemed necessary. OK, earlier today I was trying to watch Queen's "I Want To Break Free" video on their official channel, only to find that I can't do so if I don't have an account to prove that I'm 18 & older, because it's been flagged for having "inappropriate content". Anyone who has seen the video knows it doesn't come within miles of being "inappropriate", and there are other copies of the video on YouTube that one can watch without having to have an account. I was hoping to email them about their fuckery, but I can't find an address for me to contact them. I thought YouTube personally reviewed videos that are flagged (because they have to know that the "flag" button would be abused to no end by countless people), so how the HELL did IWTBF pass the criteria for inappropriate content? Like seriously, how? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And for anyone who will ask why can't I watch the other copies that exist instead of bitching & moaning, it's because the one on the official channel has the best quality version of it. OK, I'm off to bed now, will check for replies much later in the day. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A cross-dressing guy who looks so cute even Brian May had to admit he fancied him/her... and as for the scene where Freddie is rolling over people clad only in painted body stockings, well it turns me on and no doubt it did Freddie! Obviously some people may find this offensive. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In so far as your question purports to be about why IWTBF passed criteria for inappropriate content, but your title is something else indeed, I'm tending to doubt that you are actually old enough to watch that video. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually 19, but thanks for jumping to conclusions about my age/maturity because I'm ticked off at how deeply flawed YouTube's way of doing things are. But I'm not gonna register an account for the sole purpose of watching one video. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The OP is obviously frustrated (in my opinion rightly so) and using curse words to express that frustration. While it's perhaps not the best way to go about things, it hardly evidence of the OP being under 18 or whatever age you consider to be "not old enough to watch that video", and only serves to further antagonize them. To the OP; I feel your pain. I wanted to look up the kiss between Willow and Tara from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but that was apparently "inappropriate" and required logging in to see it, despite the fact that there are entire videos of just Buffy and Angel / Spike / Riley kissing and doing far more than Willow and Tara ever did. Obviously someone at youtube decided they didn't like lesbians and censored it. There's nothing you can do except the person who posted the video deletes it and reuploads it, and this time hopefully the bigot who censored it will be away and it will pass. 81.149.165.228 (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You can bypass the restriction by formatting the url as such: youtube.com/v/f4Mc-NYPHaQ. There are also some scripts over at userscripts.org which do this automatically for you. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're asking, how did it get flagged as "inappropriate"... on every video there is a "flag as inappropriate" button. If enough people flag it, presumably it gets quickly reviewed by a staff member who then hits the little "inappropriate" switch on their end. (Does the 18 thing really keep anyone from seeing it? All it requires is an e-mail account and you claiming you were born whenever you want, right?) The bar is probably pretty low, if a lot of people "flag" it. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there's a staff member involved at all? My impression is that as with most things Youtube, they just rely on users Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This link led me to think that it was "reviewed by our staff", though obviously that doesn't give a lot of information, and was specifically for content tagged as spam. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely I found which suggests you're right Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am mystified as to why users are discussing this, what article is it related to? Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Reference Desk. We answer peoples questions here. Improving articles is not our goal. 59.20.127.241 (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to be mistaken, like a library desk, fair enough. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I too was annoyed by YouTube's flagging of I Want to Break Free. Unfortunately, it appears to be impossible to contact YouTube to complain about this sort of thing. If anyone knows a working email address for customers to make complaints to YouTube, I would be glad to know it. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Youtube is owned by Google, perhaps complaining to Google would be an option. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you tried contacting Brian May's people? His e-mail address (don't know how often he reads fan e-mails, but you never know), as well as that of his PR person, Phil Symes, can be found at under "Contact." I'm guessing Brian wouldn't be pleased to learn that the video is censored. You're more likely to get through to them than you are to get through to a human being at Google/Youtube. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He actually would care. I'll do just that, hope he manages to read it though, since gets hundreds of thousands of emails everyday, and obviously cannot read all of them. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Has nobody mentioned this video was banned by MTV when it came out due to the depiction of transvestism? FreeMorpheme (talk) 11:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

addresses
I have been trying to establish a telephone connection for a company with a www.com address. I cannot find either a land address other than they are based in London, U.K. How can I access their land address and landline telephone number? telephone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.141.117 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You could try putting the IP address into Nominet and see if there is a contact address and telephone number listed.--Aspro (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * More directly, you could use Whois on the domain name. (One such online service is . Nominet's whois service only seems to work on addresses ending in .uk.) Note that Whois information could well be out-of-date, or be the contact information for some private person affiliated with the company, who doesn't want to field questions from the public. If the company doesn't have a "contact us" link on their website, they might just not want to be contacted. What is the company? Paul (Stansifer) 13:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You could email them and ask. Marnanel (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You could see if they are listed in the London Telephone Directory - if they are, their address will be given. 87.82.229.195 (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly using an on-line directory such as this (one of many). Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It would help if you told us the name of the company. But they should publish their mailing address and contact number in the "contact" section of their website. If they don't I would be cautious about having any dealings with them.--Shantavira|feed me 13:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If they are an incorporated company, they should be registered at Companies House. Astronaut (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

can cancer return??

 * I am not asking for medical advice. I wanted to know that, just like many diseases, can a person get affected by cancer once again if dose was not completed. Well most probably yes, by my point of view. but can cancer return if the dose was completed?? thank you for response....--Myownid420 (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, cancers can recur. Many cancers aren't "cured" as such; rather, treatment aims to put the cancer in remission, which is not a permanent state. 199.209.144.218 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that many many people who die in old age will die with cancer, even if they don't die of it. Looking at males, the rate of prostate cancer approaches 100% as men age.  It is part of the controversy with some cancer screening methods, such as Prostate cancer screening, which may cause men to have unnecessary treatments to "cure" a cancer that wouldn't have killed them anyways.  Some forms of cancer can be mostly benign, and may not spread or cause additional health problems, other times it is very deadly.  The big issue is that often, we cannot tell which cancers kill us, and which cancers we can live with.  The science for learning the difference is improving all the time, so it's better than it has been, but it is still not perfect.  -- Jayron  32  15:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Home
Why is the average age of home-buyers increasing? Thehazardsuit (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are talking about the U.S. Perhaps its because the average price of a home, as a function of personal income, is getting higher.  In other words, it now costs a larger proportion of a person's income to purchase a house than it used to.  Since older workers are paid at a higher rate than younger workers, it seems logical that younger workers are being priced out of the home buying market.  I have heard similar reports myself, and this seemed to be the analysts conclusions.  Its part of the justification of the U.S. first-time home buyer tax credits, (see First time home buyer grant) administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  The Federal Housing Administration also backs FHA insured loans for young home buyers.  -- Jayron  32  15:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation is very similar in the UK except that I don't think there is equivalent help from the UK government. It is often necessary for parents or grandparents to assist with the high deposits currently required.    D b f i r s   16:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the average age in the US is increasing. Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and the average age of marriage is increasing in several countries.   D b f i r s   07:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first 2010 UK Budget increased the Stamp Duty threshold for first-time buyers to £250,000 (£125,000 for others), giving a notional saving of up to £1250. The definition of first-time buyer is quite strict - see here. There was a  second budget after the General Election, but the rule still applies. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. I'd call it a removal of hindrance rather than direct help, but that's just playing with words.   D b f i r s   07:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Married centenarians in the UK
My aunt and uncle both lived to the grand old age of 101 and I would like to know how common this is in the UK. Are there any figures available on the number of married couples in the UK where both spouses are currently alive and are both centenarians? And following on from that, couples where both spouses were centenarians and one or both of them died in, say, the last five years? Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 15:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I have any stats but are you referring to all marriages? For example are you only referring to first marriages? In either event, are you including marriages where they only married when they were already centenarians or otherwise relatively recently? Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Colors
Is there a reason why red is associated with danger, and green is safe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200tribblesonDS9 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been a few evolutionary explanations offered along the lines that red is associated with 'high salience' objects (certain poisonous fruits are red, blood is red, in certain primates sexual organs take on a red hue during estrous), while green goes with more common, 'safe' conditions (grass and leaves are green, indicating comfortable environments). However, it's not the kind of thing that can be tested and confirmed, so they are mostly just loose assertions.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As with all questions of this sort, the first question IMHO we should ask is, is there even sufficient evidence these associations are universal and have been for a long time? If not how can we be sure they aren't just cultural connections that arose for whatever reason? (I recognise the OP didn't specifically ask for an evolutionary reason hence why I'm responding to Ludwigs2.) For example plenty of people have theories on why pink is 'feminine' and blue is 'masculine' but as we've discussed before when this has came up, while these associations seem extremely wide spread nowadays, it's not clear how long these associations have existed. In this example, Red for example has cases which I would say aren't clearly an association with 'danger'. Similarly Green aren't clearly an association with 'safe' IMHO Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We do have all kinds of genetically-encoded behavioral/emotional responses to a wide variety of visual information, though, including color. For example, the Evolution of color vision in primates article, discussing New World monkeys, says: "Trichromacy is observed in nearly all New World primates, and can offer a selective advantage in the discrimination for the most nutritive, colorful items; behavioral studies have shown that trichromats are 50% more likely to detect fruits compared to dichromats."  So if the color red really were associated with danger, that would be due to natural selection pressures with most likely some phenotypical plasticity thrown in (for the same reason) for adjustment to local/"cultural" conditions.  But see also Red.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  17:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Several studies have indicated that red carries the strongest reaction of all the colors, with the level of reaction decreasing gradually with orange, yellow, and white, respectively". Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...Because of this, red is often used to catch people's attention..." that's not correct. Red isn't used to catch people's attention because of those studies. Those studies exist to justify the use of red to catch people's attention. I wonder how the studies were designed to filter out the influence of culture on the amount of attention we pay to the color red. 213.122.29.136 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can read about the reversal of gender stereotypes of pink and blue at Pink (permanent link here).
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reap the goodness of red fruit: sure, they look pretty and taste great. But did you know red fruit also protect you against serious health problems? - Natural Health Articles | Find Articles at CBS MoneyWatch.com.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See Color Wheel of Fruits and Vegetables. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Rainbow Herbicides include Agent Blue (herbicide), Agent Green ("powerful herbicide and defoliant"), Agent Orange ("powerful herbicide and defoliant"), Agent Pink ("powerful herbicide and defoliant"), Agent Purple ("powerful herbicide and defoliant"), and Agent White ("powerful herbicide and defoliant").
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Psychological Properties of Colors attempted to explain the effect of different color to the human mind by their respective wavelength. Personally I think traffic light play a huge part in "teaching" us red = danger, green = go: mention very briefly here (color knowledge interact with color representation). Royor (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

charity work
Has football player Tim Cahill every done any charity work? I'm interested in learning about which charities he may have supported, and the amounts raised / donated. Thanks MadZzzzz (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can contact him through his website and ask. Quote: I actively try to work with as many charities that are close to my heart as possible--Aspro (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane statistics
I got to thinking about hurricanes when the news said that Igor wouldn't be making landfall. And this got me thinking about the most powerful Atlantic hurricane to never make landfall. This could be according to category or in the case that there were two or more in the same category then wind speed or pressure. I've been searching about and can't find a list of the hurricanes with the least amount of impact to dry land. Can anyone find such a storm? Dismas |(talk) 17:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes, Hurricane Linda was as intense as Katrina was at peak intensity, at least according to minimum central atmospheric pressure (and was stronger by 10 mph when compared with maximum sustained winds), and never made landfall anywhere populated. All the non-landfalling Category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic were weaker than Linda according to central pressure (but Hurricane Dog was as strong as Linda based on maximum sustained winds). Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You may also with to ask Juliancolton, as he is something of an amateur expert when it comes to tropical storms of all varieties. → ROUX   ₪  20:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of completeness, the other two recorded category 5 Atlantic hurricanes not to make landfall were Hurricane Easy (1951) and Hurricane Cleo (1958). Though apparently less powerful than Dog, these caused less damage, as they stayed farther away even from small Carribbean islands. Deor (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

size of political signs as an expression of speech
I have searched the web and seem to get conflicting answers. Has there ever been a case where the size of political signs has been considered an expression of speech? Federal government, first amendment gives the right to freedom of speech and political signs seem to be considered a form of freedom of speech. Can you tell me if the Federal government or state government (Kentucky) has any such requirements on political sign size regulations? Thanks! Barbara Weber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.69.225 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See this page. Also, in this very recent case from Maryland, a federal judge ruled that a local government can limit the size of political signs so long as the limit is "content-neutral." As to whether any size limits apply where you live, that would almost surely be under the purview of your municipal or county government rather than the state or federal government. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

honda
does honda sell any "green" or LEED certified cars that dont have MDF ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems, judging from our article, that LEED is only applied to buildings. Dismas |(talk) 00:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Galloping Horses and Praire Dogs' Burrows.
So whenever I see a Cowboy or other Western Movie showng a rider galloping across the plains, how am I supposed to ignore the fact that the Western Prairie was criss-crossed with acres and acres of (Prairie) dog towns that could bring down a full-grown bison (buffalo); yet I never see a movie where the resultant fall actually happens? Are horses so intelligent?? 92.30.87.55 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're watching a movie. Movies are fiction. → ROUX   ₪  23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. But what actually happens/happened in reality??? 23:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.87.55 (talk)


 * Horses and their riders galloping across the countryside are delightful images for action movies but they don't reflect reality. Riders used their horses for traveling long distances and this was only possible at a walking pace.  At this slow, realistic pace horses are well-capable of avoiding all manner of burrows, rocks and branches.  Dolphin  ( t ) 02:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Man versus Horse Marathon. Usually a horse wins, but not always.  Paul (Stansifer) 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)