Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 January 2

= January 2 =

Bulls in India
What does happen to the Bulls in regions of India were cows are sacred? Are they somehow sacred or just another animal? Do they leave them walk free through the streets? 88.8.76.174 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you certain that it's not merely a colloquialism when people say, "cows are held sacred in India," and that it's really cattle (including both males and females) that are held in such regard?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was part of my question: do 'cows' include bulls? And, if yes, do they really let the sacred bulls running around at any street? 88.8.76.174 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Our Cattle in religion article seems to specify cows in relation to Hinduism. Alansplodge (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no way you could allow bulls to walk around freely, unless they were castrated. It would be massive devastation.  Cows are naturally passive unless threatened, but bulls are very aggressive. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bulls and bullocks are still revered as being associated with Nandi (the mount of Shiva) but not as sacred or as protected as cows, both culturally and legally. Unlike cows (which are usually kept for milk), they can be used as beasts of burden (usually the bullocks). But yes, bulls and bullocks are usually allowed to wander around freely and attacks are quite common (warning extremely graphic photos of deaths on last link!) . In Tamil Nadu they even have a sport very similar to Iberian running of the bulls/bullfighting - the Jallikattu - the only difference is that it's the bulls who get all the advantages. No weapons may be used and they may not be killed (though they are often deliberately harmed to get them frenzied enough), resulting in very frequent human casualties. --   Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   18:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa caucuses
After reading this article, I'm still a bit confused as to why other states who would want the publicity/political clout don't just advance their primaries ahead of Iowa? Why wouldn't, say, Nebraska, just announce, "Our 2016 primary will be held 4 days prior to the Iowa caucuses!"  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that this was asked 4 years ago as well but I can't recall the answers and have no idea how to limit the search to a specific time frame. But if you want to search and know better how to, feel free.  That said, I'm curious what the answer is (again) as well.  Dismas |(talk) 01:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a few issues. According to our article, the Republicans don't try to enforce the "Iowa first" rule, but I'm not sure that's right. This article suggests that the Republican Party does have rules on the matter.  No doubt someone could look up those rules and see what they say. Apparently, in 1996, the Louisiana Republicans had a caucus or primary before Iowa.  The Democratic Party enforces the rule by announcing that delegates selected in another state before the Iowa caucuses won't be seated at the Democratic convention, thus depriving that state of an actual (as opposed to a possible opinion-shaping) impact on the nomination.  I suspect that Republican party leaders use more informal levers to enforce party discipline on the matter. Beyond that, "Iowa first" is a somewhat hallowed tradition in American politics, and I think many politicians would be reluctant to challenge the tradition. Another issue is that many Americans feel that the presidential campaign is much too long as it is, and there could be a backlash against political leaders in a state that tried to set an earlier date than Iowa.  Marco polo (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I decided to follow up on my hunch, and, sure enough, the Republican Party does have a rule allowing Iowa to go first and forbidding most other states to precede it, though it does not seem that the rule will be strictly enforced. The article that I linked in my previous post indicates that Florida is breaking the rule, prompting an avalanche of violations by other states. Incidentally, I have corrected the erroneous text in our article on the Iowa caucuses.  Marco polo (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In 2008, there was an issue when Florida and Michigan held their Democratic primaries earlier than they were supposed to. You can read all about it at Florida Democratic primary, 2008 and Michigan Democratic primary, 2008, or in consolidated form at Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008.  Basically, the candidates (pressured by the Party) refused to campaign in the states, and some of the candidates (including Obama, but not Clinton) got their names removed from the ballots.  The Party said that the elected delegates would not be able to vote at the convention, if they didn't move the primaries back (they didn't).  The turnout was quite low, with Clinton, predictably, winning.  Only once it became clear that Obama was going to win did the Party agree to seat half of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Buddy431 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * DRosenbach, I think the other responses cover most of the ground here, but I'll note that there was a stretch this fall where it appeared that New Hampshire might schedule its primary in December, days (if not weeks) ahead of Iowa. This had, in part, to do with the scheduling of the Nevada caucuses and a bizarre New Hampshire state law requiring that their primary be set x days earlier than everybody else's (except Iowa? I think there was some language about "comparable contests" or something of the sort). I read about it on several national political blogs, as I recall, but the first online citation I could find was from Florida .  It's my impression, based on what I recall of the discussions then, that Iowa and NH have been given a sort of free pass from both parties, but that this era is probably coming to an end.  All Nevada has to do, for example, is pass its own law similar to New Hampshire's, which will then create a death spiral on the level of dueling algorithms on Amazon. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At the risk of tangentiality, I'll note for people outside the U.S. that the Iowa caucuses exist to choose delegates for county conventions, which then choose delegates for congressional-district and statewide conventions.  The Iowa state convention then chooses delegates for the Republican national convention, which actually chooses the nominee. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * An important goal in deciding which state has caucuses or primaries and when seems to be the selection of a candidate who "represents the philosophy of the party" as well as "who can win the general election." If each party held national primaries on the same day, several months before the election, and a few weeks before the convention, then only candidates with massive funding could compete, and a well funded or rich candidate might win the nomination but be unable to win the general election. A charismatic candidate with a good message can go around to meetings in Iowa, along with his small coterie of devoted followers, and make a good showing, with less funding than if he had to campaign in California or New York, and gaining momentum and more funding for later states, if he comes in first, second or even third. Massive amounts of free national news coverage are given to the candidates contending for a very small number of delegates to the party convention )about 1%). No delegates are actually selected at the Republican caucuses. Iowa might represent midwestern rural voters, although this year the Republicans seem to be trying to appeal to ultra-conservative religious zealots, perhaps not that big a bloc of the national pool of voters. Then the candidates get screened by their ability to appeal to voters in a northeast state, followed by a southern state. The parties from time to time refine their nominating process.Edison (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

british royal marine uniform
what is the white pouch worn on the back of the white shoulder sash on the dress uniform of the members of the Band of the Royal Marines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenerly (talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a "dispatch pouch" for those important messages from the CO. The only picture I could find on the internet was a cavalry officer's one from an auction - the catalogue says "a belt with dispatch pouch". Alansplodge (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How to launch a sequential gearbox without launch control
Many car with sequential, automated manual gearboxes, such as the Nissan GT-R, have a launch control feature where the computer controls how much power goes to each wheel and clutch engagement to maximize acceleration from a take-off. In one episode of Top Gear, host Jeremey Clarkson eschews this feature and relegates it as a feature for "inexperienced drivers." However, how would one launch a car with sequential automated manual gearbox as quickly as possible without launch control? Does one just rev to around the torque peak of the car's first gear while in neutral and then suddenly flick the paddle shifter to engage the clutch? If so, doesn't this engage the clutch entirely instead of little by little, which is optimal?

In a manual, there is of course, a cluck pedal that allows the driver to control exactly how much the clutch should be engaged. But in the absence of the clutch pedal and launch control, how does a user launch a car as quickly as possible? Thanks. Acceptable (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a technique called powerbraking, where you step on the brake with the left foot and on the gas with the right foot, and then release the brake when you want to go. However, it is very tough on transmission and generally not recommended. I don't think there is a universal and safe method to launch a clutchless manual without launch control. --Itinerant1 (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

measuring usage in hours vs miles
Why is wear on car engines measured in miles, while wear on aircraft engines is measured in hours used? Same for driver/pilot exiperience -- why are truck drivers rated on miles driven and aircraft pilots measured on hours flying? RudolfRed (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's quite that simple, but I'd say the basic reasoning is that aircraft tend to be flying for the majority of time that their engines are running, and while they are flying the engines are generally working pretty hard. Mileage may not matter so much as they will work the engines similarly hard whether say flying into a wind or with it, but the time in the air will then differ. For cars, many of them spend a significant amount of their time in traffic jams and travelling at very low speeds where the wear on the engine and components is less (while stop/start city driving and frequent engine starts is pretty hard on the car, just sitting there idling for half an hour a day doesn't do much). Even when on a highway cycle, they usually travel at low engine speeds, which is similar, for example many cars can do a standard type of speed limit of around 100km/h at between 2000 and 3000 rpm, which is quite 'comfortable' for an engine. In terms of drivers/pilots, well it's the same argument - you don't learn that much about driving while sitting in gridlock, even if you're there for 3hrs. I started by saying it's not that simple though. What I meant was that for example where I live learner drivers are currently required to get 120 hours experience before they can sit for their licence; no criteria about distance travelled. Similarly, many people who sell their car will advertise it as 'country kilometres' or something along those lines, meaning that "yes this car may have seemingly high mileage, but it wasn't done in stop/start city driving, it was done at cruisy highway speeds where the engine was running at a consistent speed, brakes were getting little use, gearbox wasn't changing up and down much, the actual time the car has been in use hasn't been as long as it would be in the city, etc, so the car hasn't had as much wear and tear as you might think from the mileage". --jjron (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the reason may also be of simple convenience and tradition. A car already has an odometer, and writing down numbers from it is easier than installing a timing device, or remembering to keep track of time every time the driver stops for a cup of coffee. A plane's takeoff and landing are more dramatic events than stopping a car, and pilots can be more rigorously trained to follow routines like noting the time a log book. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Construction equipment with large diesel engines often measure use in hours instead of distance as apparently do large boat engines. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and, of course, truck drivers, at least in Europe, have their driving hours very precisely monitored by the "spy in the cab".   D b f i r s   21:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I worked in the plant hire industry in Australia for a while. By plant I mean large road construction equipment like graders, bulldozers and rollers. By hire I mean what Americans call rental. People paid us to use our gear. Usage of that kind of machinery is almost always measured in hours. (I guess that aligns with the comment from IP 72..... above.)

Thank you, everyone, for the replies. RudolfRed (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct way to address an unknown academic
If I am writing to a professor who I don't know via email, should I call said person "Dr. so and so" or should I call him by his first name? I'm from Australia, where we tend to be fairly informal, although from undergrad students, I've heard of the professors being called Dr. or just their first names, with seemingly the most common being first name. I'm a postgrad, if that helps, and most of the professors in question are overseas, eg. the US. t.i.a. IBE (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When you're introducing yourself, "Dr. XXX" is the correct form of address, though, when you two get to know each other, first-name basis may become acceptable.--Itinerant1 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * He may not literally be a doctor though. "Prof. so-and-so" would work too (although he may not literally be a professor either). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't some internet research give you the right answer? 88.8.76.174 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As a reasonable rule of thumb whenever you're dealing with people you don't know, you should start formal and work your way up to the more casual. "Dr. so-and-so" is almost always fine, unless you hit an adjunct professor or lecturer who doesn't hold a Ph.D.  With academics who hold virtually any university appointment, "Professor" is a safe bet.  (This covers you on the occasions when you hit an adjunct professor or lecturer who doesn't have a doctoral degree; the risk of this varies with institution and subject area.)  Individuals with an M.D. or other medical degree may be more used to being addressed as "Dr." simply from their professional experience.
 * As others have noted, once you get to know someone informality often follows. (In my own workplace, the answer to the question "What do you call someone with an M.D. and a Ph.D.?" is "Jennifer", or sometimes just "Hey you".) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that in the case of a known academic, "Prof." is the safest way. But the whole "Dr." vs. "Mr." or "Prof." form of address, as Peter Griffen would say, "really grinds my gears" sometimes.  I have found that some people will take extreme offense to being referred to by the incorrect title, regardless of whether any reasonable person could possibly be aware of said title upon first introduction...and will pointedly (and condescendingly) correct you.  (I'm sorry that I didn't automatically assume that an eight grade phys ed teacher with a "PHD" in education from a city college prefers the term "Doctor So & So". )  Regardless, I've used "Dear Sir/Madam" in some such cases where it was unclear, and even in one case included in my introduction that I was unsure of their "preferred term of address", and "respectfully request that you include your official title and contact information in your reply", which resulted in him replying with "just call me Bill", and to this day I am the only person in the company than can (safely) refer to him as Bill...so it turned out well just being honest about it. Quinn &#10163;WINDY  17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be appropriate to call all academics with university appointments "Professor" in a lot of countries. In the UK and other countries with academic rank systems based on the British one, Professor is the top academic rank. Lecturers and Readers aren't addressed as Professor, they are just Dr. Surname (or Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Surname if they don't have a PhD). You should be able to find their correct title on their university's website, though. --Tango (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some academics are more concerned about titles and rank than others, so it is best to err on the high side. On the other hand, there are people with merely honorary degrees who (improperly) insist on using them. (I knew one man with no degrees at all who had two honorary doctorates from local universities, and he demanded that he be addressed as such. One local newspaper columnist complied to the letter, referring to him as "Mr. Dr. Dr. Jackson". [name changed]) — Michael J 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I have in the past called them all "Dr." but generally, they always sign email replies with their first name only, so then I assume that means they would rather be known by the first name. I have also wondered if that means they are telling me it was silly anyway to be so formal, so I was concerned it just sounded a bit wooden. Now I'm thinking I may have even erred the other way, if some are so hung up about Dr vs Professor. Classic story too about Mr. Dr. Dr... Would people say it is enough of a signal if they sign the email with their first name only, that they wish to be addressed this way? IBE (talk) 08:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A good way to be informal while occupying the moral high(ish) ground is to write, assuming the person is called Professor Joe Bloggs, "Dear Joe (if I may), &tc &tc". If they are hung up about about their titles then they are idiots rather than scholars and not worth bothering with. (Dr) Ericoides (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

talk : roommate, account and pw
My desktop was broken so I borrowed my roomate's laptop & logged in to my yahoo and facebook accounts. Private conversations are saved purposedly on those 2 accounts of mine. Unknowingly her laptop saved my emails and their pw. This confused me for I remember when I tried to log in on her laptop there appeared a message bar saying "Do you want this computer to remember your password?" (or message similar to that) and it was so clear to me that I clicked "no". When I tried to log in again (specifically on FB) using her laptop, I was surprised when it could still remember my pw. I just ignored it at first because I trusted her. I began to worry when she would say something..well not straight to the point and let me feel "hey I know your secret, better be kind to me or else.." (it's really hard to explain, but I know you understand what I'm trying to say). I'm no expert in computer so I tod my ex-roommate my concern. I don't know what she did but she managed to make that laptop not remember my pw. After sometime, out of curiosity I borrowed my rm's laptop again and guess what? her laptop still remembers my pws. What she's doing is really raising my blood. We go home together at night because she works part time in our company. However, it's really hard for me to start talking with her about it because she's 42 and 13 years older than I. I was able to change my primary email on my FB but I have no inkling if she can still open it though. I'm more concerned about my yahoo account. How can I protect my yahoo account from her? Is it possible to change its email or something? If I change its pw, is it still possible for her to open it on her laptop? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.148.210 (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing your passwords should be enough. Change the email password first. APL (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In my experience computers will often "remember" user names and passwords, even when you have or haven't ticked the appropriate boxes. Yahoo is particularly BAD at this. I would never share a computer with anyone, but if you must share, ensure both of you log in to the operating system as different users with different passwords and then log out after you've finished.


 * I'm not quite sure what it is that "what she's doing is really raising my blood", I can't quite follow that bit, because it doesn't seem she's doing anything. Anyway, as above, just change your password/s while using your own computer. If you change your Yahoo password and your FB password then there's no way her computer can figure out what you've changed them to, so the problem is solved. There's no need to change the username/s. Yes, her computer will still remember your username (who cares, if she's got your email address she knows that anyway as do probably a billion other people), but once the password has been changed there should be no further problems. And be more careful in future. The Yahoo login clearly has a checkbox that you can untick for it not to keep you signed in, so once you log out it can't get back in unless the password is remembered. The remembering passwords is part of the browser, but it will always prompt you even if it is set by default to remember passwords; personally I don't 'remember' them even on my own computer, and uncheck that setting so it defaults to not remember. Oh, and if you're super-duper worried about this, then deactivate those accounts and create new ones; seems an awful lot of trouble for nothing though. --jjron (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You said you trusted her, but you apparently don't because now you think she is reading your social media pages. What is it you think she is doing?  Do you really have "secrets" that could be used against you posted on Facebook?  Not a good idea.  Either way, just change your password and don't borrow other people's computer to access personal info.  My laptob has all kinds of personal settings and mods on it to make usability for me easier...it is not intended to protect the privacy of someone else.  I'd say it's akin to using my home phone.  I would make efforts to give someone a their privacy, but if I happen to hear someone yakking about stealing from work or cheating on their husband or whatever...well, I can't "un-hear" it, and you probably shouldn't have had such a conversation on someone else's phone. In short, often blame is a two way street. Quinn &#10163;WINDY  17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I no longer trust her. She's reading the private conversations on my yahoo and FB. I do have secrets there. What's keeping me furious is when she's giving me the feeling of "I-know-something-about-you". Really annoying but I blame myself partly for not taking extra care. Anyways, thanks everyone for the responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.148.210 (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure she's not just 'messing with you'? Sure, we all have secrets, but have you seen any evidence that she actually knows more than she otherwise should/would/could, or is it just that she knows that she's got you worried about this and is just 'teasing' you about it? Anyway, we're not really here for counselling, so just get the passwords reset and all will be good. And you can't change now what she already knows, so don't worry about it. --jjron (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Defo change your passwords right away. Then, next time you borrow a computer, only use private browsing. In my experience, private browsing on IE is safe and nothing is remembered by the computer. --Lgriot (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning a mobile phone
Good afternoon (London time) wikipedians, and happy new year. I have been reading news stories recently about how dirty mobile phones tend to be, since we handle them all the time, keep them near our mouths and they have hard surfaces for bacteria to survive on and it struck me that keeping this object so close to hand in such a state probably wasn't hygienic or good for my health. I therefore have two questions:

1. Is this a reasonable concern, given available evidence?

2. How would I go about most effectively cleaning my mobile phone with things I can either buy cheaply or have around the house. Normally if I was so bothered about cleansing something like this I would simply sterilise in boiling water, but I'm thinking that isn't appropriate in this case.

Many thanks, 86.171.88.197 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that we cannot give medical advice on the Reference Desk, so do not take any replies here in a medical context, this is just a general discussion. Re question 1, if you have solid evidence from a reliable source about this then analyse it carefully and come to your own conclusions; for me however, I have seen a number of popular-media based health scares on this topic over a number of years, mainly from tabloid style newspapers and TV programs, but am yet to see anything with much substance to them from what I would regard as reputable and unbiased sources. Look, yes phones are filthy things, and have been for 100 years, but I'm unaware of any significant outbreak of disease or pestilence leading to major widespread sicknesses or deaths directly and exclusively tracked back to phone usage. The media love these types of scares though. Re question 2, a simple Google search such as this returns antibacterial phone wipes for (in my opinion) the paranoid. I personally wouldn't waste my time or money. FWIW, I'd suggest mobile phones should really be less dangerous than the shared home phones, office phones, and public phones we have been using for the previous hundred years, given that it is mainly just our own germs that will be on them. I'd say the evidence would show that you're far more likely to 'get sick' or die from your mobile phone by using it while your are driving, than you are from any germs that may be residing on it. Nonetheless, if you are particularly concerned about something you have or may contract from your phone, please seek out the appropriate medical advice from a qualified professional. --jjron (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be paranoid about it, but I wipe mine with pure alcohol when it gets really sticky; same with the bottom of my mouse, btw. But that's just me... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not germophobia, it's just practicality. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

See also "Telephone Sanitizer" from HHGTTG. Collect (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Items such as television remotes, toothbrushes, handheld telephones can be hundreds of times more bacteria-covered compared to your toilet seat (I think it's about a 50,000-to-42 ratio for TV remotes). Disinfecting may or may not be a good idea, but it somewhat increases the risk of making the bacteria slightly more resistant. I'd clean it if it gets covered by any gunk. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's my normal approach, figuring (perhaps wrongly) that I'm less likely to be infected by "my own" germs than by someone else's, although it's nice to de-gunk things once in awhile. Meanwhile, most sanitizers or disinfectants use rubbing alcohol as their base. Are any germs known to have developed a resistance to alcohol? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You can get UV mobile phone sanitizers.
 * You can also buy telephone sanitizer spray and wipes for cleaning landline telephone handpieces. Googling "computer keyboard sanitizer" will return similar products for keyboards.  Many businesses do actually sanitize phones and keyboards. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Snow Goose dramatization by Nat Wolff
"I am looking for a copy of the Snow Goose Drama - written by Paul Gallico - adapted by Nat Wolff - a drama with sound and music. Starring Herbert Marshall and Joan Loring. It was produced by Brunswick - LA8508 - we have the original vinyl but it is very scratched and would like a cd version. 41.213.33.253 (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Snow Goose: A Story of Dunkirk. Looks like is is available on CD as Wartime Memories. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

NOT medical advice :P
I've noticed two intriguing (and unrelated) things that happen to me. Has anyone else noticed this happening to them too, or has some kind of study been done to relate each observation to the apparent cause? Does anyone know why these occur? 117.227.81.212 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) When I cry very heavily for a very long time, I always end up getting a headache.
 * 2) When my periods are about to begin, I get a sudden outburst of pimples.
 * Regarding the second point, as our acne article points out, "Hormonal activity, such as menstrual cycles and puberty, may contribute to the formation of acne". A Google search on acne menstrual cycle turns up a mass of further information. I'd never heard of the crying/headache thing, but again a Google search turns up many results. The Livestrong site for example says that it could be from dehydration from the fluid loss, stress from whatever caused you to cry, or irritation of the sinuses if you are prone to such things. These things could be plausible. --jjron (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both phenomena sound familiar, based on anecdotal experience, However, as always, if the OP has genuine concerns, they should see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The second one I know as hormonal acne and is much more common than girls realise. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

celtic godess.blodaiwythSuzukialf (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
hi i am trying to research information,regarding a mythical godess.i am unsure of the spelling.so no results.i am unsure if she was a celtic godess or norse.she was regarded as very beautiful.she could be very kind but also very bad.the closest i can get to the spellig is blodaiwyth.i saw a picture.she had long flowing hair and piercing eyes.that is all the information i can supply,sorry.any help would be fantastic.many thanks.
 * >> Celtic pantheon or maybe >> List of Germanic deities. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * >>Perhaps this is "Blodeuwedd" old boy? See http://yplantdon.com/MathE.html and an illustration at http://yplantdon.com/blodeuwedd.jpg. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or indeed Wikipedia's own Blodeuwedd article. Valiantis (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you call...
...the thing in front of the nave? Thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See church architecture and Architecture of cathedrals and great churches. Dependes which direction you count as in front of. Usually the basic cruciform shape is nave (east-west axis), transept (north-south toward eastern end), crossing (the intersection), choir (eastern extension from the crossing). But there are many minor parts and many, many variations. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The western face (entrance) is apparently just called the facade which may be what you are looking for. Can't really see if there is a choir from that picture. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * thing? Do you mean the Chancel--Aspro (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC) area?


 * (ec) :When you say 'in front of', do you mean outside the church at the left boundary of the photo, or do you mean deeper into the church, to the right? You may find Architecture of cathedrals and great churches a useful reference.  To the left of the nave in the photograph, the exterior face of the building is the facade, with its circular rose window.  To the right of the nave (deeper into the church), and sticking out to either side is the transept (one semitransept on each side of the church).  The tower above the center of the transept is the crossing tower. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 2x (ec) No, I meant the thing that looks like a lamp, located in front of the church. It is not part of the church. ♫GoP♫ T C N  18:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the thing with two round shiny bowls on top of it? It's a spotlight I think. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 18:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or a floodlight maybe. Bus stop (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very likely a floodlight, yes, to illuminate the spires at night. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any web images of that church at night, but for an example of how it might look, here's how they do the Chartres cathedral: File:France Eure et Loir Chartres Cathedrale nuit 02.jpg ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, here's one: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I think floodlight is correct. If you want more pictures, see . This looks really impressive, or this, this too. ♫GoP♫ T C N  22:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Replacing land line with cel phone
I want to get rid of my land line, since it is extremely expensive relative to the number and minutes of calls made on it. I wonder if a) it is possible in the US to transfer the old land line number to a cel phone, and b) possible to somehow hook up a celphone to ring the 4 phones located around the house and allow them to be used to receive and place calls. Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly and yes, with hardware. You need to contact you new provider to see if they can transfer the number. Newer phones have Bluetooth and allow you to connect a cell phone for incoming and outgoing calls, even if the landline phone is not connected to POTS. I have an AT&T TL90070 (made by Vtech) that has this feature.


 * But, ensure you have good cell service first. I tried to eliminate POTS, but just don't have good cell service in my rural area. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You could use a Bluetooth to land-line gateway. (Here are two examples :  )
 * This will connect the phones in your house to your cellphone handset, but only when the handset is on and within range of the gateway. This will probably cause the celphone handset's batteries to drain a bit faster than normal, so make sure it's plugged into the charger when you're at home.
 * (And like Gadget says, make sure your home has good cellphone coverage before you ditch your land-line.) APL (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Does the celphone have to be a premium blue tooth phone, or could a $15 supermarket phone be plugged via a cable into the base station which communicates with the other phones in the house? Could the base station itself act as the celphone, via a code typed into it or a sim card, obviating the need for a separate celphone to embody the phone number? Can a base station be cabled into the wired phone system in the house, to interface the plain old telephones to the cel network? Foe cel use, I have been using such a $15 celphone and buying time at 25 cents per minute, in a compulsory $20 purchase every 90 days. Even with typical landline use, I have not been using that much. Edison (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should be able to drive a few phones through your existing wiring, provided that you disconnect it from the outside first. (Even after you cancel your service, your phone line may stay "connected" to allow 911 access. My understanding is that you'd need to physically disconnect it before you could drive it from one of these gateway devices.)
 * I should warn that I've not actually tried this yet. It's just researched it a while back because I was thinking of doing it. APL (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One product you might consider is the magicJack, which allows you to keep your old number and phone (4 phones would require quite a bit of wiring, or multiple magicJacks). However, are you sure you can eliminate your land line and yet keep internet access ?  They are often bundled together. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Voice over IP could be a good compromise solution. Also, don't totally abandon your land line, in case your power is down, your cell is discharged, and you have to call 911. You can get a bare-minimum-service land line for just a few bucks a month. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "A few bucks a month" has been $40, per my local phone company for a land line, even if I only make or receive a dozen phone calls or fewer, which would have cost under $5 on a cel phone. There are basic fees, and usage fees, and 911 charges, and universal access charges, and taxes on the fees, and local taxes on the taxes.  Each actual call made or received costs several dollars in the end with the land line, since I am not a ratchetjawed blabbermouth.  Edison (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ulysses S Grant Museum, in Biloxi, MS.
Do you know who the current caretaker is for the Ulysses S Grant Museum, in Biloxi, MS, or maybe one in the same called the Beauvoir? Thank you, Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Deja Vu? Didn't we already address this question?  RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the January 1 section. There is no such museum in Biloxi. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks in Biloxi likely hate his guts. Why would they build and maintain a museum to the mastermind of the War of Northern Aggression? Edison (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The diversity of Innovation ideas are great
StuRat: Thanks for responding. The diversity of Innovation ideas are great -- but who would of thought 'Toilets' and the history thereof. But as far as a Museum for Ulysses S Grant in the south -- why not -- that is where Robert E Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox -- even the south needs to be reminded as to the history and how it happened the Rebels -vs- Union; in searching it seemed that there were such museums of each soldier's history sprinkled through-out our nation; that what museums are for, right? But what I am trying to find out is if the museum in Biloxi, MS (Beauvoir) or Ulysses S Grant, if they are one-in-the-same, or what is it called; and who is the current caretaker of it? Thank you, Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Earlier you were given a link to all the museums in Biloxi. There is no one here who is likely to have any connection to those museums. Why don't you start making phone calls to the museums on that list, and pose your questions to them? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Museums tend to be located in larger locations (with lots of money from benefactors), nationally significant sites (the capital) or in a location closely related to the subject. Grant is not closely related to the small town of Biloxi. U.S. Grant museums/historic sites include his boyhood home in Georgetown, Ohio, his post-war home in Galena, Illinois and his farm in Saint Louis, Missouri. The closest thing I can find is that the U.S. Grant Association and its archive moved from Southern Illinois University to Mississippi State in 2008. Rmhermen (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The local connection is key. As unlikely as would be a U.S. Grant museum in Biloxi, it would be even less likely to find a Robert E. Lee museum in, say, Madison, Wisconsin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DejaVu? Maybe -
RudolfRed: Not everyone is a pro at this navigation process -- Be NICE, Be Patient, Deja Vu? Maybe if I had stayed on the web over night and thumbed through all the entries -- but this is my 2nd time here & just getting back to here was a long journey to see if anyone had answered my question -- like I said not everyone is a pro at this navigation process. Even saving the web page in my favorites didn't get me back to the same spot where the comments were; it just brought me to the 'ask a question' page. Then I had to back track and remember from where I had started in the first place on the 1st. If I had to list all the web pages that I had to go through just to get to here - well - I don't think I'll be back, it is to complicated to get back to the comments each time unless you just stay online and arrow backwards or forwards to the area. Anyways - slow down and enjoy the journey and don't be so quick to be critical of others - not everyone was born with the information you have. Clair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you were a registered user, you could maintain a "watch list". Even as an IP, you could check your contrib history to get back to whatever pages you've edited - which is a pretty short list at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Clair, if you want to make further comments about a question you've asked, or some comment on a response you've received, the best place to do it is in the question itself, not as a totally new thread. You've found this page again and you've found the responses so far.  Just click the "edit" link to that section, and add your new comments at the bottom of that section.  Don't edit this whole page, because that puts your new comments at the bottom of this page, as an entirely new thread, which is not what you want.  It makes for a very disconnected and disjointed conversation, interspersed with other, unrelated threads.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  21:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you The Mark of the Beast for This page lists the museums in Biloxi to click on ; and Thank you Jack of Oz for pointing it out to me that, that was it was for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.134.236.179 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Questions will typically be archived after five days, in which case if you can't find it on the subpage you posted the question on, you can search for it in the archive. ~ AH1 (discuss!) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)