Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 October 28

= October 28 =

This statement is false.
What is the solution for this paradox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article Liar paradox. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The proper response is, which statement?


 * It has two problems. The central one is that the truth or falsity of a statement is about what it points out in reality.  A statement is inherently intentional.  The second problem is that the statement is vague.  If you try to specify it to remove the vagueness you end up getting a paraphrase something like "The statement (that X) is false."  But what is "that X"?  It can only mean "The statement (that the statement (that x) is false) is false" leading to "The statement(that the statement (that the statement (that X) is false) is false) is false" and so forth in an infinite regress.  The sequence of words actually has no meaning (it is just mere sound, flatus vocis, not an actual statement) because it never points to an actual claim about some real fact.  The statement never approaches reality.  For all sorts of approaches some less helpful than others, see self-reference. μηδείς (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are also such things as Many-valued logic systems that can resolve these paradoxes in a meaningful way. Buddy431 (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not actually a paradox. It only looks like one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "This Statement is False" doesn't make a meaningful assertion that can be proven to be true OR false, in my opinion. It is a cute semantic trick but not a true paradox (as bugs points out).  HominidMachinae (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To reiterate my above statement, there are some systems of logic where such a statement can be assigned a truth value (although you are correct, in that it is neither true nor false, but it does have a definite truth value). Buddy431 (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Russel's paradox doesn't make an assertion at all, it's just a concept: the set of sets that don't contain themselves. So the liar paradox could be put into the same format, and then it becomes "the observation that falsifies itself". I think dismissing it is the cute semantic trick. Card Zero  (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The observation that falsifies itself about what? HominidMachinae, BaseballBugs and Medeis (?!) above have it right. To say that a statement is false is to say it makes an incorrect claim about some actual state of affairs.  A sequence of sounds doesn't have a truth value unless it is actually about some thing.  Otherwise it is just a sequence of sounds. μηδείς (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Demanding that a statement has to have a subject makes things more convenient, and less fun. You could also say "a set whose members can't be itemised has no meaning", or that negative numbers are absurd (and make dark of the things which are in their nature excessively obvious and simple). Besides, the statement does have a subject - it has a non-resolving, recursive subject. Card Zero  (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The apparent "paradox" is a result of the mistaken assumption that "this statement is false" is an actual logical statement... which it ain't. As one of my math teachers once said, "If you start with false assumptions, you're liable to get interesting results." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugs, the article Liar paradox has a section dealing with the formal logic structure of the statement - it is a logical statement, or at least can be formulated as one. As I repeat yet a third time, there are certain types of formal logic systems that can actually assign a truth value to statements like this.  But that would actually require reading the references supplied, something you're obviously not too big on.  Here's another one for you to ignore. Buddy431 (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "this statement" cannot be assigned a "truth value". No way, nohow. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, "this statement is false" has the same truth value as "this statement is true", namely none, because neither one qualifies as a "statement" in logic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the things we assume to be true without ever consciously realising we're doing so. It would be a very long list.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Modern texas
Well I was wondering if somebody could help me. Please tell me how much modern texas is compared to the old west. Also if two people were to agree could you legally have a gunfight? Also I no that in cities this wouldnt be the case but in little towns to lots of people ride horses around? Thanks for reading please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imazebra444 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Duels are outlawed specifically in Texas. Even in states where they're not specifically outlawed, the participants would certainly be arrested for whatever violence they committed during the duel.
 * Horse-riding is pretty much only a hobby nowadays, but you can find places all over the country where people ride them for fun or sport. (Where I grew up in Massachusetts is very much a suburban area, but there are sometimes horses walking down the street, as there's a stable nearby.) Also, some parts of USA still have Mounted Police.
 * But do people actually ride horses to get from one place to another? Or to go down to the saloon? No.
 * The "Old west" is dead and gone. Even most of the old abandoned "ghost towns" have been demolished and replaced with housing developments and Walmarts as the suburbs grow outwards. APL (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

thumb|right|Texan national dress on display, nicely accessorized with a bottle of [[Lone Star Beer.]]
 * Modern Texas is nothing like the old west. It certainly has a distinctive culture compared to the rest of the U.S., but even within Texas, it is a very diverse place.  Austin is a very different sort of place from the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, East Texas is quite distinct from West Texas, etc.  Also, please note that the old west was never like the old west.  The old west you find in Western films and novels is basically to the real "Old West" as the Harry Potter stories are to modern England.  You are as likely to find gunslingers in the real "old west" as you would be to find wizards running around England.  Events like the Lincoln County War and the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral really happened, but they were abberant events, and last as stories because of their fantastic nature.  Crime existed, but then again, it did before the Old West, it does today, and it will in the future.  -- Jayron  32  03:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an unfair comparison. Many of the story-book heroes and villains of that time were based on real people, who had at least some real adventures. You can actually go visit the grave of Wild Bill Hickok or Billy the Kid, you can't go visit Harry Potter or Dumbledore.
 * I don't disagree with your basic point that the wild west was not as you'd think from movies. (Most folk didn't even own a handgun!) But be careful not to go too far the other way. APL (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, then lets just say that Old West movies are to the real Old West as Baron Münchhausen was to 18th century Germany. Would that be a better comparison for you?  -- Jayron  32  03:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok im from alberta canada so i was wondering. In the country area here lots of people still wear cowboy hats. What about there?


 * People wear cowboy hats all over. Lots of them in Texas too.  -- Jayron  32  03:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When I visited Texas, my impression was that the hats are probably Texas's biggest hold-over from the Old West. (Both the real and the imagined.) But as goofy looking as they are, they're also pretty practical if you live in that climate. APL (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Goofy looking? You better smile when you say that, pardner.  Hat, boots, starched-and-pressed jeans, and a big-buckled belt are all standard parts of the national dress down here, acceptable on all occasions.  And damn sexy on most men.  I tell you what.  Textorus (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, most people down in texas don't dress like that nowadays. The most common elements of dress from the "old west" would be first the hats,belt, and boots (most will just wear regular jeans), unless you go to the rodeo. Also, the southern drawl has mostly disappeared. People only ride horses for recreational purposes now, not as transportation. I know many people who ride horses at friend's/family member's ranches. In small towns you either drive or walk (usually drive). Also, people end up driving everywhere so the average person gets much less excercise than inman other places, combined with very large meal portions, reults in very large people (often in multiple dimensions). The "sexy" effect is usually not aimed for and typically not achieved, unless you're watching the cowboys at the rodeo. Yes, it's hot, and often humid too depending on where you live. Thank god for AC... Heck froze over (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I remember that there were one or two little towns in Texas where cars weren't allowed in town, so everybody (all 20 or 30 of them) rode horses or walked. You see cowboy boots, ironed jeans and cowboy hats as dress clothes pretty often, even in the big cities.  You mentioned being from Alberta, Canada.  From my experiences living in both places, I found the "country boy" attitude and "western" style to be very similar between Alberta and Texas.  Places like Calgary and Edmonton are modern cities like DFW, Houston or San Antonio, but people dress very "western" for things like the Calgary Stampede or other heritage events.  In the smaller towns, things like ranching and agriculture still provide a lot of the local income and are heavily embedded in the town's culture.Tobyc75 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heck froze over, who went out of his way to contradict everything I said, is either not from Texas, or doesn't get out much at all. Also, I see that anonymous IP 24.92.85.35 has removed the Urban Cowboy pic, but it has a fair-use rationale on the image page, and the IP did not bother to delete it there, so why the discrimination?  Textorus (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wasn't trying to contradict textorus. Most people don't wear the "national dress". Heck froze over (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, textorus, that "sexy" can be a little subjective... Heck froze over (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's entertaining that we find this rather ignorant OP quizzical, whereas if he'd asked this about a State/country that wasn't so well off his remarks might be interpreted as insensitive at best, or offensive. Tells you something about context. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite all the (unsupported) claims to the contrary in this answer, you can still find people who ride horses for work (cowboys, tour guides, police, border patrol), and not just in Texas. National Geographic did a picture story of modern cowboys in black and white photos - inclusding some Texas ones. While certainly not "lots of people" use horses, it is also certainly not true that they are only rare recreational vehicles. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lots of people do indeed ride horses in Texas, sure, but not "riding around in little towns," as the OP asked, presumably meaning on the streets as an everyday affair, and hitching them to parking meters while they shop for groceries at Piggly Wiggly. You only see horses on town steets in parades for the 4th of July and Christmas nowadays.  Textorus (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

hospitals in karnataka following triage system
Can you please give me the answer for this question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franco cyril (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a question. Could you be more specific? --Ouro (blah blah) 06:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the only answer I can think of if the question is intended as written is "all of them". All hospitals must decide how to allot limited resources and there are none I can conceive of that are "first come first serve".  This means that every hospital has some form of triage, be it formal, informal, following any specific scheme or system or ad hoc, they all engage in triage as a practice. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)y


 * I agree with MoninidMachinae in that all hospitals utilize the triage system. The staff must prioritize who to treat and in what order.  They might not do it very formally, but it is certainly used.  I suppose a large difference is that in a hospital, you will eventually be seen. Whereas in the case of a catastrophe with a large number of injuries, there are some individuals who might be triaged and due to extreme injuries, skipped. TheGrimme (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Cloture in the US Senate
Each new US Senate sets its rules. I thought that when this Congress convened early this year, the Senate changed the cloture rule. But it is still being used. Didn't they change it? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. The cloture rules still require 60 votes to end debate.  Senate Democrats recently invoked the so-called nuclear option on a few bills, but it is unclear whether this is to become standard practice, or just a unique set of circumstances.  See .  -- Jayron  32  03:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At the start of this Senate session, some Democrats stated that each Senate adopts its own set of rules, and is perfectly free to drop the cloture rule, by a simple majority. Republicans warned that such a move would come back to haunt them in future Senate sessions when the Republicans had a majority. I don't recall hearing that the Democrats actually took the radical step. The Constitution just says Congress has to follow its own rules, but does not state what those rules must be. One Senate cannot pass rules which are binding on a future Senate. Edison (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The rule change of October 6 was a minor one and dealt with cloture only indirectly. Kevin Drum: "The rule itself was an obscure and trivial delaying tactic that, until now, neither party had used for decades. It does not directly affect either cloture or the filibuster." However, the method by which the rule was changed may be important - it was eliminated by a majority vote that overturned a ruling of the parliamentarian, which is considered somewhat rare. Drum's piece is a good (short) one. Here's another good, short write-up from Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution and George Washington University. Neutralitytalk 06:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I had in mind this past January, when I remember some members of the US Senate were talking about changing the cloture rule, and I thought that they had done it, but I guess not. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I heard a law related podcast or legal program a few years ago that talked about the central contradiction in the senate rules related to this point... namely that there's a general principle that past bodies cannot bind future bodies without consent... however because the senate turnover is almost never less than a quorum, is each new senate a "new" body, or is it a continuing body. There're plenty of complex arguments that go both ways... I think the podcast was NPR related but I don't know what it is right now. However perhaps that's a starting point for finding the scholarship on it. Simple answer is that it's not well established, and more importantly, because the Congress largely gets to set its own rules, the Supreme Court doesn't have much say in matters like this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

US president with math degree?
Herman Cain, currently making a big splash in the race to be the Republican nominee, holds a Bachelor's degree in mathematics (and a Master's in computer science). It occurred to me to wonder, has there ever been a president with a degree in math or physical science? I kind of doubt it; the closest I can think of is Jimmy Carter, who I believe was an engineer (his bio doesn't say what degree he took at the Naval Academy &mdash; that would be a good addition). --Trovatore (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the relevant Wikipedia article List of Presidents of the United States by education doesn't list what subjects they actually studied. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * James A. Garfield had a mathematics degree from Williams College, Williamstown MA. He taught the subject for some time, and he published a new proof of the Pythagorean theorem.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not what the source says. He studied some math, but that doesn't mean his degree was in mathematics, and the references aren't clear that he taught math specifically (possibly he taught some, but there's no evidence it was as a specialism).  According to the article James A. Garfield he studied a range of subjects, excelling in classical languages, and taught Latin and Greek.--Colapeninsula (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Carter had a Bachelor of Science degree, which, according to other sources, was in physics; reading that biography that makes sense. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Herbert Hoover's degree was in geology. There's slightly more in the life sciences and medicine: Warren G. Harding had a medical degree while William Henry Harrison dropped out; Theodore Roosevelt had a wide-ranging college education and was a skilled naturalist who published on ornithology. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A scientifically literate US President would be a very welcome change from the series of ignoramii who have held the office in recent years (decades!). God help the world if a creationist ever makes it into the Oval Office. Roger (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Over-generalization. As a registered voter in the U.S., I can think of only two ignorami in recent decades; both, alas, were elected to two terms of office, despite my votes to the contrary.  Textorus (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoramii and ignorami, eh. Hmm.  The former is not on at all.  The latter might be ok if it was a Latin noun, but it's a Latin verb (meaning "we do not know") that's been borrowed for use as an English noun.  Ignoramuses is the only appropriate plural, methinks.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  10:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Correctamus! (n., fm. L. Lat. v.t. correctamare, adapted fm. pr. perf., correctami sunt, lit. "we have been corrected." Textorus (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to be annoying, a verb from "correctamare" would have to be "correctamamus"; "correctamus" would come from "correctare", which could conceivably be a Latin verb, meaning, I suppose "to correct emphatically", made from the participle "correctum", which is actually from "corrigere" (the basic verb "to correct"). "Ignoramus" comes from "ignorare". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you're overlooking the need for the passive voice in my extremely hypothetical construction. "Correctamamus" would be active voice, and present indicative, not present perfect, also.  :)  Textorus (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Were you in a coma until a few years ago? Anyway taking this back to the original question, having a degree related to the sciences doesn't guarantee scientific literacy. There's a well known medical doctor who (I'm not naming for BLP reasons although the facts are easily sourced) has tried to be a candidate before and is trying again who confusingly put his hand down when asked if he was an idiot did not believe in evolution but later clarified he was indeed an idiot did not believe in evolution in a follow up. Edit: Looking in to it again (I last saw it over a year ago but of course it's came up again because the person is trying for the presidency again) it seems the person involved has been less clear cut in his book and may now be saying he does accept evolution although I'm not certain of this and have no desire to read his book. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * all this squinting is making my eyes hurtAerobicFox (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thomas Jefferson studied "mathematics, metaphysics, and philosophy" at the College of William and Mary, including  the works of Isaac Newton. The Wikipedia article states that he received a degree "with highest honors." A biography "The road to Monticello: the life and mind of Thomas Jefferson"  By Kevin J. Hayes, page 57, says that he did not receive a degree, though he had completed the requirement stated when he entered the college. Other books state he did receive the degree. Under the new requirements, he would have been required to attend for 4 years rather than the 2 years stated when he entered. Rather than attending another 2 years, he left and studied law. He had stated that he hoped to learn mathematics at the college. Prof. William Small taught him mathematics and astronomy. He learned calculus from William Emerson's "Doctrine of Fluxions." He learned mechanics from Emerson's "The principles of Mechanics," and later in life designed various water mills after illustrations in the book to compare their efficiencies. He was likely the only US President to have studied Newton's Principia which he quoted, in Latin, in communications to Congress while he was Secretary of State. He used mathematical physics in designing a proposed standard unit of length based on the oscillation of a pendulum. He was an architect, so geometry was likely a subject in which he delved. He admired Euclid, as did Abe Lincoln, who mastered the six books of Euclid. Jefferson was an inventor of various ingenious mechanical devices, and  used the calculus,,  in designing an improved moldboard plow with the shape of least resistance. Jefferson used a mathematical argument for a new system of apportionment of Representatives. Jefferson wrote to a student in 1799 of the importance of various branches and levels of mathematics, and of their use to him and to anyone: . (The compilers of the letters consider "fluxions" to be differential calculus).  In 1824 he wrotea review of Patrick K. Rodgers' mathematical treatise, praising the work of "Lacroix in mathematics, Legendre in geometry...and Laplace". He contrasted British and French approaches to teaching differential calculus.  The actual level of math he learned was likely surpassed in the engineering training of Hoover and Carter, but he stands very high for his achievements as a President born in the 18th century, and for his continued use of and enthusiasm for higher mathematics. Hoover co-authored a book on the economics of mining in 1904, and his writings referenced differential calculus, so he was no slouch, and clearly had a higher level of math than any president since Carter at least.   A 1920 article quoted his onetime supervisor in geology that Hoover "kept up and applied his higher mathematics as we see such studies used only by the most competent class of engineers." Jimmy Carter, on the other hand got a D in "his persistent bugaboo, differential calculus" at Georgia Tech, where his studies began in 1942. (Right in there with ya, Jimmy) Later, at the Naval Academy, studying statistics he wrote he didn't "get" permutations and combinations. The Wiki article doesn't mention over his math problems. (Any mention of one subject might be "undue weight.") Google Books showed me no works discussing differential calculus and other 20th century presidents. Edison (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome answer, Edison. Textorus (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd guess China has the highest percentage of people with science and engineering degrees in its leadership. Personally I think the US could do with a bit of their type thinking for term or two rather than a bunch of lawyers. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Bearing in mind we've given suitable attention to the US.) Here in the UK, Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry. Three Prime Ministers have, since the war, had no university education: Winston Churchill, James Callaghan and John Major. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thatcher seems to be the only UK case since 1900. Stanley Baldwin briefly studied at Mason Science College before going into the family iron manufacturing business and Arthur Balfour had a degree in "moral sciences". Gladstone had a degree in Classics and Mathematics. Hut 8.5 13:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * According to our article academic major, the concept of a major didn't exist until 1910, so no president prior to Kennedy had a degree in a particular subject. --M @ r ē ino 20:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Over the bounding main
It occurs to this landlubber to wonder: assuming a calm sea and a wind blowing in the direction of travel, would the speed of a sailing vessel - a big one, like the Mayflower or the Mary Rose, not a small modern-day pleasure craft - be equivalent, or nearly so, to the speed of the wind?
 * In which case, could a sailing ship actually have travelled faster, on occasion, than a modern-day powered ocean liner, given a high windspeed?  The sailing ship article does not address this point.
 * And 3rd question: more specifically, how many days would it likely have taken Othello to get from Venice to Cyprus?  I seem to recall that some character in that play seems to make a lightning fast voyage between the two points, but perhaps that was poetic license on the Bard's part.  Textorus (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking your questions in the same order:
 * Given a "calm sea" the wind would necessarily be quite light. One would have to subtract the effect of the drag of the water from the wind speed to get the actual speed of the ship. Hulls of the Mayflower or Mary Rose type had quite high drag so getting close to wind speed ain't gonna happen.
 * A high wind speed is incompatible with a calm sea.
 * Othello's speed I leave to others who know more about the ships of that era and the sailing conditons in the Med.
 * A modern sailing boat can easily exceed the speed of the wind while reaching (wind coming from the side). Roger (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sailing boats become very unstable in high winds and you end up having to reef the sails in order to slow down and avoiding capsizing. You can't just keep going faster and faster as the wind gets faster and faster. --Tango (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * HMS Victory, "one of the fastest first rate ships of the line at her time", could manage a "maximum recorded speed was 10-11 knots, approximately 12 miles per hour" (about 20kph). The source quoted is a document in the Public Record Office. Victory was a lot bigger than Mary Rose or Mayflower, but could carry much more sail and had a couple of centuries' advantage in the hull design department; so I expect the earlier ships would haver been slower. The most modern liner in the Cunard fleet, the MS Queen Elizabeth, has a top speed of 23.7 knots, while her 1938 namesake could do 29 knots. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, l'Hydroptère made over 50 knots, and modern multi-hulls have been recorded with >30 knots over a 24h period. For "real" ships, the Champion of the Seas managed 465 NM in 24h, for nearly 20 knots, and Preußen claimed over 20 knots under good conditions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A critical factor in the speed of a sailing ship along a given route is the direction and intensity of the prevailing wind and currents. For example, the Mayflower needed 66 days to cover the roughly 5280 km (3280 miles) from England west to Massachusetts, but only 31 days to cover the same distance sailing east. The reason for this difference is that the prevailing wind and current both trend eastward across the North Atlantic.  The Mayflower's speed with a favorable wind and current averaged about 7 km/hour.  Against the prevailing wind and currents, its speed averaged about 3 km/hour.  A voyage across an ocean would tend to be a bit slower than a voyage through coastal waters (like that from Venice to Cyprus) because of the intensity of storms on the open ocean and the inevitability of being blown a bit off course.  The sea distance from Venice to, say, Larnaca in Cyprus is roughly 2450 km (1520 miles), according to Searates.com. Prevailing winds and currents from Venice to Cyprus are favorable for most of that route.  (Winds tend to be westerly or northwesterly.  Currents tend to be northwesterly along the Italian coast of the Adriatic; a northeasterly cross-current would prevail off of Greece, then a favorable northwesterly current would prevail east of Crete.)  So, if we assume a speed similar to the Mayflower's return speed of 7 km per hour, a voyage from Venice to Cyprus would take 14–15 days. That would have been something like the normal speed. A voyage taking, say, 10 days (with very favorable winds and a motivated crew) might have been considered "lightning-fast" at that time. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all for the enlightening answers, especially Marco, who is obviously as expert on ancient travelling conditions as his namesake. Textorus (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It took 2 or 3 weeks to get from Venice to Cyprus in the Middle Ages too, and that was such a common voyage that I know there is lots of Venetian information about exactly how long the trip would take (I just can't recall where to find it at the moment). Cyprus was an important trading centre and was eventually directly controlled by Venice. It took longer going the other way though, as long as three months. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh. I never realized that return voyages could take much longer than the original ones.  Like the extra hour required for westbound transatlantic flights, only MUCH worse.  :)  Textorus (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It could be VERY MUCH worse; see this New York Times article from 1912. A liner came to the aid of a sailing barque which had been trying to sail from Pensacola to Montevideo but had made little progress in 14 weeks because of lack of wind and contrary currents. The crew had been living on one biscuit a day for 40 days. (My grandfather was first officer of the liner during WWI). Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I will never complain about airline food, or the lack thereof, again. The other three articles on that link are fascinating too, thanks for posting.  Textorus (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I found one reference that it took 16 days to get from Spoleto to Acre in 1218, which is roughly the same (maybe a little shorter) as Venice to Cyprus. But that was considered fast, so it three weeks was probably normal. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Paradox
Is there any real paradox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on your question? -- Jayron  32  17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In particular what you mean by "real". --Mr.98 ([[User talk:Mr.

98|talk]]) 17:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Real meaning actual paradoxes in nature.
 * Sure - Russell's paradox, or Curry's paradox involve true statements that lead to real contradictions in certain mathematical systems. They are only "resolved" in that the entire mathematical system is declared faulty, and replaced by ones that don't contain such paradoxes.  But within the system, they are about as real of a paradox as you can get. Buddy431 (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those paradox for me is similar to a computer glitch, or maybe im interested in knowing if there is any paradox that has not been resolved.
 * What exactly was not clear to you from the previous thread posted by you on this exact same topic? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, Gerrit and Peter. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sodexho foods prior locations
Hi, I was employed be Sodexho foods in Burlington,Vermont at the University Of Vermont from Sept 2002 to Feb of 2006. I have not been able to make proper contact to varify my employment.Has another company taken over? How do I varify my employment,is ther a number I can contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.36.2 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like they changed their name, dropping the h to become Sodexo. Don't know about that particular location, but general contact info for the parent company is at . Short version: SODEXO (Head office) 255 quai de la Bataille de Stalingrad 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux France +33 (0)1 30 85 75 00 . Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may find it easier or more convenient to contact Sodexo USA. Marco polo (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What is this puzzle please?
(4915kb) Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like something similar to a puzzle (based on the concept of tensegrity) that used to be sold under various names, including "Plato's Secret". See the third entry on this page. Deor (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

PETA
What is PETA's stance on aboriginal tribes that are still in existence but use animals for food, fur, etc? Barbaricslav (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From The PETA practical guide to animal rights: "PETA's quarrel is not with true subsistence hunters who honestly have no choice but to hunt or to fish in order to survive." Which seems to more or less answer it — they don't really care about them, probably because they are so reasonably scarce as to not have much of an effect on anything at this point. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)