Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 January 9

= January 9 =

can i print with my kindle
How do i print with my kindle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.199.211 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Try running an ink roller over it and pressing it onto a piece of paper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt that you can. They wouldn't want you making illegal copies of books.  Of course, you could always take pictures of the screen and print those, but that hardly seems worth the effort and expense. StuRat (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure there is no way to do it directly. If you have access to a PC, you can download the Kindle software from Amazon and you'll have access to all of your books from the PC as well as the kindle itself.  Then you can use the PrintScreen function to print one screenfull at a time.  Painful - but OK for short sections.  Printing more than a small percentage of most books would be illegal under copyright law anyway...although there are plenty of Kindle books that are out of copyright. SteveBaker (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here I thought it was the Kindle that wasn't worth the effort and expense. μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The 'classic' kindle's screen is by far the best way to read an electronic book yet devised, the 200+ hour battery life and the totally free-for-life unlimited-data cellular Internet access provided on the early versions is spectacularly useful in a bind. Don't think of it as a very limited tablet computer...it's not...think of it as an electronic book with a few extra goodies. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And, contrary to the name, they don't even make good kindling. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Chopped-up small German children are the best things to get fires started. That's where the word "kindling" came from, you know.     Jack of Oz   [Talk]  12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As in "Go out to the kindergarten and chop me some kinderlings ?" :-) StuRat (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

This probably should have been on the Computer desk. However, to print them is trivial. Instead if installing the Kindle software install calibre (software). Import all your books into Calibre and convert them all to text files. You can then print them out. Of course this will only work for books without Digital rights management. There are ways around the DRM but it's probably illegal. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, almost every Kindle book that's out of copyright (generally they are the $0.00 downloads on Amazon.com with 'generic' front covers) was downloaded from Project Gutenberg (http://gutenberg.org) - where there are over 40,000 out-of-copyright ebooks that can be printed (in full, legally) from within your browser. Project Gutenberg is a fantastic resource - it deserves as much support as Wikipedia from volunteers who care about the preservation and publication of human knowledge and culture. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

online job
I want part time online job. please tell me some trusted online part time job site. I'm from india .Rikisupriyo (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a difficult question because it depends on what skills you have. Jobs that can be done online, from home (or whatever) that also require minimal skills tend to be outsourced to places where labor rates are incredibly low - even the relatively low wage expectations in India are proving too much to compete with yet lower paying countries.  Hence most sites that are offering this kind of thing are scams.  If you have skills appropriate to online work (computer programming, for example), then there are specialist agencies that handle this kind of thing.  There are other kinds of business you can start yourself - web page designers, for example (again, you need a certain skill-set for that).  SteveBaker (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You asked yesterday about a specific provider of this kind of work. I think the same cautionary advice applies in a more general sense too.  Astronaut (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

FAA DI BRUNO
ME GUSTARIA SABER SOBRE FAA DI  BRUNO,  SI TIENE FAMILIA  EN PROVINCIA  DE  BUENOS AIRES  DE  ARGENTINA... DESDE YA MUCHAS GRACIAS....

MARTA DESDE  MERCEDES, BUENOS AIRES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.105.49.212 (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - first, this is the English language wikipedia - if you need to ask questions in other languages, you'll need to find your language's equivalent. Secondly, typing questions in ALL CAPITALS tends to make them hard to read - which annoys many respondents.  I fixed your formatting problems! SteveBaker (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am guessing the OP is speaking Spanish, in which case Marta from Mercedes, Buenos Aires, Argentina, is asking if we can tell her anything about FAA DI BRUNO; if he/she has family in the same province.  Not rocket science or the occasion for an abrupt response. Not that I intend to google the answer myself for her either. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * in SteveBaker's defence that didn't seem abrupt to me - he was just explaining the etiquet of this board... Didn't type anything rude or condecending... gaz hiley  09:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This may or may not help: Faà di Bruno ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Cricket
As a 30-something born and bred American, I can barely understand even the opening paragraph of the article on Cricket. I actually find it funny that one has to redirect towards the insect -- to me, it's "also" a game, not "also" an insect. Anyway, I found the article quite confusing nearly to the point that I still have no idea what's going on or who stands where, when they do it and well...how to play cricket properly. My question is -- is it just that it seems difficult, or is it actually way more complex than, say, American baseball? I'd consider American football way more complex than baseball -- is it even more complex than that? Or is it just that I've had about zero exposure to it and it's really no more complex at all?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Although many of my fellow countrymen would probably like to lynch me for saying it...there isn't all that much difference between cricket and baseball. Cricket has two bases instead of four.  Aside from that, you could watch a game, happily assuming you were watching two-base-baseball.
 * As for the redirect - there are large parts of the world where those insects either don't exist - or are considered (incorrectly) to be grasshoppers, and cricket (the sport) is played by far more people in the world than baseball - so your idea that a marginal sport is redirecting to a majorly important insect is a very US-centric view - for most people in the world, the sport is major and the insect minor.
 * (Hmmm - Cricket (insect) has no mention of the range of this animal.)
 * SteveBaker (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not clear from our articles that anywhere lacks crickets. The invasive house cricket from Asia, the African/Mediterranean cricket, the lucky crickets of China, etc. Perhaps they are missing from the UK? Rmhermen (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are crickets in the UK, but they are not particularly common - . Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it's absurd that the sport gets naming priority, but consider the fact that a full 5% of wikipedia articles are about soccer players and you will know all you need to. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The intro makes perfect sense to me, but I know something about cricket. But as Steve indicates, on a very high level there are many similarities between cricket and baseball. There is even an article Comparison between baseball and cricket which you may find useful. Also, if you look back in the histories of these two sports, they were even more similar in the early 1800s. I recommend giving cricket a chance. And once you understand the game, you may be able to improve the intro to make it more understandable to someone unfamiliar with the game. P.S. I find cricket way, way much more interesting than soccer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Soccer is more fun to watch when tackling and clotheslining are allowed. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That already goes on a lot, except it's in the stands. Someone once said that Rugby football improved on Soccer football, and American football improved on Rugby football. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Brits like me may need to read wikt:clothesline to understand what they're on about....  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The spp. of the genus Rugby (genus authority Ellis, 1876) though varying in distribution, all share a common phylogeny expressed as an oval ball that is more commonly thrown than kicked to advance a team's position.
 * Species include:
 * Rugby americanus
 * Rugby canadiensus
 * Rugby rugby (the type species)
 * Rugby yorkshirenus
 * For personal reasons I don't want to discuss, I'm a huge Packers fan. Recently saw a Packers game on TV, and there was a Field goal play, and it was pretty much identical to a rugby union or rugby league drop goal set play.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What SteveBaker said. I'm an American, but have watched and read about Cricket some.  It's really not that hard to understand.  Here's the basic rules:
 * The playing surface consists of a big grass oval with a dirt strip down the middle. At either end of the dirt strip is a wicket, which is three long sticks stuck in the ground topped by two short sticks over the gaps between them.
 * At any one time, there's a team with the ball and a team with the bats: The team with the bats can score runs, and the team with the ball is trying to put them out. Whatever team has the ball has all of their players on the field at once; while the batting team has two players on the field at once.
 * Play starts with the bowler (analogous to a pitcher in American baseball), who stands by one wicket, throwing the ball at the other wicket. The batsman tries to defend his wicket by deflecting the ball away from the wicket.  The batsman is out if the ball knocks down part of the wicket, or if he hits the ball and it is caught on the fly.  Otherwise, if the batsman puts the ball in play, he has the option to run at the other wicket.  Standing at the other wicket is another batsman; so if the striking batsman puts the ball in play, the two batsman exchange places.  Every time they exchange places counts as a run.  Any number of runs (from zero on up) can be scored, but if the wicket is left unguarded by a batsman, any fielder can knock it over and put a batsman out, so batsman will stop running if the wicket is threatened.
 * Once a batsman is out, he is replaced by another batsman from his own team; until there's no one left to replace him. (Thus, a team bats until there's one batsman left, you need two to field a batting team).
 * Each bowler can bowl six balls in a row (called an over) before he has to be replaced by another bowler. There's no rules on how often a bowler can bowl, except that a bowler cannot bowl two consecutive overs.
 * The team with the most runs at the end of the match wins. The end of the match is defined differently for different forms of cricket:
 * Test cricket is the longest, most grueling, and highest level of the sport. A single match can last most of a week, as this version has unlimited overs and four innings.  That means that each team gets to bat twice, and continues to bat until all batsmen (save one) are out: a team can bat all day and not have all of their batsmen retired.
 * Limited overs cricket is designed to be played in a single day, and limits the number of overs in an innings, so as to shorten the game: these games are still usually pretty long, but don't last longer than 1 day, but an innings can end before all of a teams batsmen are dismissed.
 * Twenty20 is a recent innovation, it is both limited overs and limited in time: it's a two-innings game, and a team must complete 20 overs in 75 minutes. This makes the matches much faster paced, and the shorter time makes it possible to watch a whole match on TV in a single sitting, something only the most dedicated fans could so in the longer forms of the game.
 * Does that help? -- Jayron  32  04:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, very helpful, but in response to "Any number of runs (from zero on up) can be scored, but if the wicket is left unguarded by a batsman, any fielder can knock it over and put a batsman out, so batsman will stop running if the wicket is threatened", how do batsmen actually "defend" the wickets? It's obviously physically impossible to stop a fielder from knocking one down without really nasty physical violence. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With their bats. The wicket may only be knocked down by the ball.  If the batter is in the proper position (behind their crease, a line on the ground that defines them as "safe") then the only person who can knock down the wicket is the bowler.  The bowler bowls the ball at the wicket, trying to get it past the batter.  The batter swings the bat and tries to deflect the bowled ball so that it doesn't hit the wicket.  Once the batter leaves their crease (in an attempt to score runs), then any fielder can knock down the wicket with the ball: they can do so by throwing the ball at the wicket, or but knocking the wicket over with the ball in hand.  Once the batsman (or his bat) is over the crease line, then the non-bowling fielders can no longer get him out.  -- Jayron  32  04:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes perfect sense now. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Laws of the game are available here. Zoonoses (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the stumps (the small wooden bits at the top of the wickets) fall, the batsman is out. This includes if he accidentally hits them himself, not just the ball.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  06:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean bails, KT. The bails sit on top of the stumps, and the bails and stumps collectively make a wicket. If the wicket is 'broken' and the bails removed, the batsman is out. Not to be confused with the wicket, meaning the strip of prepared grass/dirt upon which the game is played. See wicket - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, thanks for the correction. You've bailed me out there.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  10:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're getting that specific, there are times when parts of the wicket can fall but the batsman would still not be dismissed. For example, if the ball were in play, and a gust of wind blew the bails off, or if a fielder accidentally bumped the wicket, then play would continue, though the fielders would now need to physically remove one of the stumps to get the batter out.  -- Jayron  32  13:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The games diverged so long ago trying to understand cricket with baseball comparisons is generally unhelpful. Just watch a few matches - you'll pick it up.  You didn't figure out baseball by reading our baseball article.  Zoonoses (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that most Americans, unless they pay a ridiculous rate for a pay-TV cricket package, or spend time looking for, travelling to, and actually watching cricket for hours, are going to find that advice fatally unhelpful? Jayron's explanation was wonderfully clear on the other hand. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Presumably, any American with access to Wikipedia also has access to YouTube, where there are hundreds, nay, probably thousands of opportunities to watch Cricket. Americans do not necessarily have to hunt for an obscure sports channel on a cable system.  There are even edited videos on YouTube that cut out some of the boring bits, so you can get the gist in a short while.  -- Jayron  32  05:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I generally find sports boring, and your explanation quite economical. Why spend hours watching when less than a minute's reading of a good encyclopedian's comments serve even better? μηδείς (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Baseball is played by little girls in England. Cricket is for men.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  05:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except for British baseball which is played by men. -- Jayron  32  05:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Also, to add to Jayron's excellent explanation, in the longer games a team which is batting first can retire at any moment. If they get, say, 300 runs, and don't think the opposing team will get that far, they can choose to become the bowling/fielding team.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  05:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be risible or insulting, KägeTorä? μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I was merely pointing out a major difference between baseball and cricket, though Jayron corrected me above. I did not know we had baseball teams here in England, despite being a resident of Liverpool, where apparently it's most popular. We played Rounders when we were kids, but I've never heard of adults playing it.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  05:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference to "little girls" seemed dismissive, especially when the article referred to children. Of course I knew a Scot who called his sons ladies.  It was only years later I figured out he was saying "laddies". Are boys called girls in Liverpool? μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i did not mean to sound like that, it's just that is actually how it was. I went to a boys' secondary school, where we played a version of this in PE class using a soft football. In my street when I was younger, most of the kids were girls, and we lived in a cul-de-sac, which was perfect for rounders, so we just played that all the time. We had nothing else to do. No internet, no Xbox, no mobile phones, just a ball and a bat, and coats we could throw on the ground to use as bases.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  06:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I fucking (bloody?) hate political correctness; I only had the article to go by.  I just wanted to be perfectly clear.  My favorite '70's/'80's activities pre-pubescence were beating up the boys and eating insects, spiders, and minnows alive.  Pong came out when I was 10 and Atari when I was 12. μηδείς (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Brits have often teased Americans about baseball being a schoolgirls game in Britain. There's a fair amount of truth in that. In the early 1800s, in addition to actual cricket, there were a couple of major variations of baseball played in the northeast - the "New York game" and the "Massachusetts game". The former was more like modern baseball. The latter was more like rounders than the New York game was, and it eventually faded. Cricket lost popularity in America as baseball developed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We played American Football in PE class many times, but without the helmets and body armour. It started off as American Football, but the rules were not explained to us properly, so it diverged into Rugby, then every time it just ended up like a massive bar fight. Scores were really low, because nobody actually even cared where the ball was. I remember the headmaster coming out and asking what was going on, as we were all attacking each other, and the PE teacher just said, "At least they are getting some exercise." before going back into the school and leaving us to it. There was no hard feelings between any of us afterwards (my teeth were broken once, but that just meant I got the rest of the day off school to visit the dentist - this was actually done in the changing room, and had nothing to do with the game).   KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  08:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For an Australian women's sport that re-unifies aspects of both baseball and cricket, see Vigoro.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It really is literally the alternative to cricket for girls. Our school didn't let us play cricket in PE, not even once, as we had to play rounders when the boys played cricket. Really annoying, as cricket is one of the few sports I could have done quite well in. I'm hopeless with a rounders bat, and pretty decent with a cricket bat: hopeless at bowling in rounders, but okay at bowling in cricket. They did let us play rugby for a year, though, before relegating us to hockey. And football briefly before funnelling us into netball forever. 86.140.54.211 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Two other questions, Jayron (or whomever) (1) Can the batter bunt? (2) Is there a set number of batters per type of game, or are the teams simply equal by mutual agreement, or can teams have uneven numbers? μηδείς (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no equivalent of the "bunt" in cricket. The batter can hit the ball as hard or as soft as he chooses; there are advantages and disadvantages towards how the batter may hit the ball:  A ball hit hard can clear the bounds, which grants the batter 6 runs, or may drop far away from the wicket, allowing a better chance at runs but such a hard hit ball also stands a better chance of the ball being caught on the fly.  A softly hit ball won't go as far, but can dribble along the ground, and thus ensure that the ball can't be caught on the fly.  It's one of the many nuances of cricket strategy.  AFAIK, the standard number of batters is 11; schoolyard games could have any number of batters (like a pickup game of baseball or basketball in America), but in most sanctioned games a team is 11 players.  -- Jayron  32  05:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What does 'bunt' mean? I am not clued up on baseball terminology. I lived in Japan and helped teach it to children there, but I had to learn it myself first from Japanese people, in Japanese.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  05:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bunt (baseball) --Onorem♠Dil 05:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that Wikipedia doesn't feature a search box where one could look up information on terms or concepts one didn't know about. Oh wait, it does.  Well, since you did go through the trouble to type a long question asking what "bunt" means, from the Wikipedia article Bunt (baseball), reachable from the disambiguation page Bunt, it explains it fully, but basically it is a type of specialized hit in baseball, whereby the batter, instead of making a full swing, holds his bat steady in front of the pitched ball, in an attempt, instead of batting the ball far, to drop it on the ground right in front of himself.  Bunting has special rules that apply to it (for example, a foul ball on a bunted third strike would count as an out, while on a full swing it would not).  The advantage of the bunt is that, aside from the catcher, there really isn't usually another player close enough to make a play on the ball, so a particularly fast runner could beat out the throw.  -- Jayron  32  05:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We do that in cricket. Generally the reason is that the fielders are in positions which are difficult to avoid, or the ball is coming straight at the wicket and you stand a chance of LBW. Just lightly tapping the oncoming ball or guarding the wicket without moving, basically. Also, thanks, Jayron - I had never even heard the word before, and didn't use the search box because I thought it might be slang.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sort of. There are bunt-like hits in cricket, but in baseball the bunt has extra rules associated with it.  In cricket its just one of any number of batting strategies, and does not take special mention in the laws of the game.  The bunt has its own rules and definitions within baseball whereby it is treated differently by the official rules than a normal hit.  See .  -- Jayron  32  06:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It actually is kind of slangy. Note that "bunt" and "punt" are related, and for similar reasons. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am almost in my sixth decade, and that's the first time I ever realized that "punt" and "bunt" are related. Gotta love WP. μηδείς (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In a recent NFL game, I forget which one, the quarterback did a pooch punt, which is an occasional football tactic that's done for somewhat the same reason as a bunt in baseball. The funny thing is that etymologically, that expression amounts to a "push push". Who says football isn't educational? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tom Brady did it against the Broncos in last year's playoffs: . Is that the one?  -- Jayron  32  06:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the one, but it's a good example. I'm thinking the one I saw came in the Vikings-Packers game a couple of weeks ago. But it's always for the same reason, namely to get the ball downfield and hopefully catch them off guard and get good field position. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks BB, I didn't know that at all. So basically it means 'doing as little as is needed, and not more than can get you or your team mates out of the game' as a tactical decision.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  06:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not exactly, it's a tactic whose purpose is either to catch the fielding team by surprise, or at least to make it difficult for the fielding team to make an optimal play. Either way, it's a variation on Wee Willie Keeler's batting success credo: "Hit 'em where they ain't." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For those who like power hitting, here's a rare feat, accomplished by Yuvraj Singh a few years ago. Looks like a good cousin of baseball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure a "six" is that rare in Cricket. Looking at Boundary (cricket), it doesn't seem to be that different than a Home Run in baseball in terms of rarity.  Indeed, according to the Wikipedia article, there was a Twenty20 match that featured 24 "sixes" between the two teams in a single Twenty20 match, the nearest equivalent home run record in baseball is List of Major League Baseball single-game records which states that the record home runs for a single team is 10 in one game.  -- Jayron  32  05:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Individual 6's are not that rare, but an over's worth of 6's by one batsman is unusual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. I hadn't watched the whole video.  Yes, an entire over of sixes is pretty amazing.  Akin to Reggie Jackson's 1977 World Series performance of three home runs on three straight pitches.  -- Jayron  32  06:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be an excellent analogy. In this case, there's a Scottish version of Howard Cosell behind the mike. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the Americans in this thread (that's most of you) are aware of Cricket in the United States. DRosenbach, why not get yourself along to a game some time? --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We had a league in Japan, in Shizuoka. It was mostly Australians and Sri Lankans, but some Brits. Just an amateur league. I only played once, before I moved to Nagoya to get married.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  07:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Australia is a rare country from where one can play cricket and baseball internationally. Some Aussies have made it to major league baseball. While ingrained with cricket knowledge from birth, I've played baseball too. Learnt a lot about it. Enough to be willing to try to explain the infield fly rule to beginners. A much better player of both games, Ian Chappell, captained the national cricket team for years and also played baseball at interstate level, and once sacrilegiously declared that baseball was a more complex game than cricket.
 * Nobody yet has mentioned the fascinating book Playing Hard Ball by Ed Smith. Smith was an English test (international) cricketer, now a professional writer, who was interested in baseball and for a few years joined spring training with the New York Mets. He draws some really interesting parallels between the two games. For example, from the point of view of sports psychology, he thinks it makes more sense in some ways to compare a baseball pitcher to a cricket batsman, rather than a bowler, partly because of the frequency of mistakes. A batsman can do everything right for thirty balls in a row, but one mistake and he'll be out, and his innings will be judged a failure. Similarly, a pitcher can throw a series of perfect pitches but then give away a home run off an easy pitch, and no-one will remember the earlier pitches. (I'm sure the analogy isn't perfect, and Smith explains it much better than I have, but I found it convincing). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Our article on Cricket is in poor shape and I've more than once started and failed to get to grips with it. Some of the explanation of the gameplay above is excellent. Cricket is a sport that's difficult to explain, but easy to pick up when watching, so long as one is not distracted from the main concepts (attempting to score runs without getting yourself out) by the many subcomplexities that exist in cricket, like they do in most interesting sports. Like baseball, it features the attempt of a team to outwit an individual, and vice-versa. Its beauty is best seen in the five day version, where a script that's been seemingly played out for days on end can occasionally be torn up by an individual's brilliance in an hour or so. Finally, for those who like sports with stats, cricket is awash with them. --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, a statistician's paradise for sure. Also, I grin when I hear people complain that cricket (particularly the Test variety) is "boring".  They have not even begun to think about scratching the surface of the game.  Cricket is like a Mandelbrot set of subtle complexities.   --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  12:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised no one suggested this kind of guide to the in's and out's of cricket. Astronaut (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, I was just about to suggest the same, as it does really clarify the essentials of the game. Here is the text:
 * "You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
 * When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game". Ericoides (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Does that ("both sides have been out twice") mean there are two innings? μηδείς (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In traditional test-match cricket, which can run five days, Yes. Also for the Twenty20, as Jayron notes. I've not actually seen one of those matches. The one-day matches, limited to 50 overs per side, have one innings per side rather than two. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) That means there have been four innings - one innings (note different singular to baseball's 'one inning') is a single team batting while the other fields. So when both sides have been (all) out twice (bearing in mind that only a batting side is got out), that's four innings. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's another way to look at it. It's actually used both ways. See Innings. That same semantical oddity exists in baseball. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alex is correct. In cricket, each team's at bat is called "an innings".  In test matches there are 4 innings (two per side).  In ODI and Twenty20 there are 2 innings (one per side).  Thus "an innings" in cricket is equivalent to "a half inning" in baseball.  -- Jayron  32  01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course in a one sided Test Match or other First-class cricket match it's possible that the winning team will bat for only one innings and the losing team for two, being unable to pass the winning team's total even then. That is described on the score card as winning by an innings and x runs. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Called a Follow-on, for anyone who wants to read more. -- Jayron  32  02:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A follow-on is not always required for an innings win. It can happen if the team batting second scores considerably more than the team that bats first, which then bats poorly in its second innings so that its two innings scores combined are still less than the other team's single score. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. It was unclear from your post when you said "the winning team will bat for only one innings and the losing team for two..." if you were also indicating a temporal relationship.  It could be read to mean (as I did) WLL, which is a follow on.  -- Jayron  32  03:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see what you mean. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bugs is correct about innings, as his link shows. I watch a lot of cricket. From skimming, everything else by Jayron is incredibly good, for an American. IBE (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditch those last 3 words. I know many Australians who don't know as much as Jayron about cricket.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The test is being able to understand lbw. This is a mysterious and arcane shibboleth that only a 9th dan cricket watcher can describe properly. Sort of like offside in soccer. IBE (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Like many rules in many sports, the Leg before wicket ("LBW") law is essentially fairly simple: if the umpire judges that the ball would have hit the stumps if the batsman hadn't blocked it with his legs, the batter is out. "The rest is commentary, go and learn it", as Hillel the Elder said in the bit that's normally left off what has become known as his Golden Rule. --Dweller (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly it's not that simple. For one thing, the batsman (not "batter", please) cannot be given out if the ball pitched outside leg stump, regardless of whether it would have hit the wickets.  For another thing, it can sometimes depend on whether the batsman offered a stroke.  These things are not just commentary. Our article on the law is pretty clear.  --Viennese Waltz 10:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer you to the second of the two sentences you're responding to. --Dweller (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm not sure what you mean. Your description of the essentials of the lbw law is simply incorrect, as I point out above. --Viennese Waltz 11:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * When introducing an outsider to something complex, it's best to boil it down to essentials. The LBW law is extremely complex, and has become even more so in recent years with the advent of referrals. However, it is in essence (and its history derives from) stopping the batsman gaining an unfair and unentertaining advantage by blocking the ball with his legs. The newcomer need know no more than that until he or she wishes to look into the complexities which I explicitly mentioned. Complaining that someone has said something "incorrect" when they give a simple version of a complex matter is both a truism and ridiculous. You might as well go complain to a school history teacher that the "reasons Germany lost WW2" he teaches kids are "incorrect". --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I was objecting to was your quotation "the rest is commentary", as though the complexities aren't really part of the law, but merely to do with the law. Viennese Waltz 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You've prompted me to start a new discussion on the Entertainment desk (which is apparently where sport belongs) about other "shibboleth" rules. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Further to my comment above about the article Cricket, I've started improving it today. It's a big old article and there's a lot of work to do. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * just don't dare edit the lbw stuff until we, the secret cricket cabal, award you your 9th dan :) IBE (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ouchie
Why do people (under normal circumstances) say "ouch" (as opposed to other things, like, say, "Babooba!" or "Michael Jackson") when they hurt themselves or feel pain? Is it a natural reflex? Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, historically it was just Americans who said "ouch" (according to the OED); Brits said (and still say) "ow". Both have unclear etymologies, but basically they're imitative: you just say the first thing that comes to mind of a short, punchy variety, presumably. So a bit of both, IMHO. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 11:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * KELLY CLARKSON! -- Jayron  32  21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

When travelling, I've heard non-English speakers make a variety of noises in such circumstances, including "oowa", "ay" and "ayee", the latter of which I found to have the same effect on me as the sound of fingernails on a blackboard. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually scream 'yabadabadoo!' and then dance Gangnam Style. I think the possible reason why 'ch' is on the end, is because it was about to be 'Jesus Christ', but of course that was considered blasphemy in earlier times, so we are just left with the 'ouch'. In Japanese, a lot of people say "ita!", which is short for "itai!" ('it hurts'), but also means 'somebody was here!' (or somewhere not specified), so when I was married I enjoyed saying to the wife 'Who was where' whenever she burned herself in the kitchen, which in retrospect, was quite fun to watch.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  12:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The ever-reliable Online Etymology Dictionary says; ouch 1837, from Pennsylvania German outch, cry of pain, from Ger. autsch. The Japanese word is itai. Latin used au, hau. It also says ow (interj.) 14c. as an exclamation of surprise; 1919 as an expression of sudden pain. So what wounded English folk said before that, I can't imagine. My French dictionary translates "ouch" to "Aïe". Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We English are renowned for our stoic "stiff upper lip". In times of great pain, we simply stiffen our resolve and carry on.  Words are not required!  (OK - I say "f**k")  In truth, I'm sure there was never any shortage of expletives or sharp sounds.  Dictionaries are volumes of words - a reflexive sound, a grunt, yelp, squeal or sharp inhalation of breath isn't going to be described as a dictionary word - it only hits their radar when the word is spelled out ("O-U-C-H") and in a context where the meaning is clear, probably from the first time it appeared in print.  SteveBaker (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed; when Henry Paget, 2nd Earl of Uxbridge had his leg blown off at the Battle of Waterloo, he was supposed to have said "By God, sir, I've lost my leg!". Of course, we have an article - Lord Uxbridge's leg. Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Interjections and expletives are interesting in that they lay between language and animal calls. Stroke victims who lose language can typically still curse and say ouch.  I had a relative who had Wernicke's aphasia for the last month of her life, and although she talked like this woman. Her speech was like doubletalk, but her comprehension and her ability to curse and yipe appropriately were not affected.  (Note also the coprolalia and verbal tics of people with Tourette's syndrome, showing a deep, primitive biological component to this type of speech.)  Note also the apparent linguistic universal that these words start with an /a/ and then form a falling diphthong going to /i/ (Ay!) or /u/ (Ow!).  The vowels /a/,/i/, and /u/ are so basic that almost every language has them, and they are typical of babbling.  While there is obviously some learning going on, you're not going to find a language that has a word for ow that sounds like strengths or squirrel. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that ow and ouch are linguistic and not animal cries. In German, there is the word Au, pronounced much like English ow. It means "river meadow".  In Mandarin Chinese, ào (pronounced with a falling tone just like the English exclamation) is the pronunciation for several homophones, including ones meaning "proud or haughty" and "mountain valley". Marco polo (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And in english, the word "eye" doesn't mean what the Spanish word "ay" means. My point was that while these "words" are learned and given phonemic form (which is why you call them words and not animal cries) they are processed at a deeper non-semantic level.  Ouch is a verbal or oral gesture, not a word with an abstract meaning as such.  When it is used as such it is a cry.  If we get meta we can say "He said 'ouch'" and then we won't scream it.  But in that case we are using the word the way we use "sigh", which is not actually the sound we actually make when we do what is called sighing.  I am sure Steven Pinker discusses this at length in various places if people are interested. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Medeis, my apologies, I didn't read your earlier comment carefully. You weren't claiming that the syllable /aʊ/ could not have semantic meaning; I see that now.  However, I don't think that ouch is a word like sigh.  Sigh describes a sound that is different from the sound of the word itself.  Sigh is like belch or groan.  Ouch is different, because people really do say /aʊtʃ/.  (Parenthetically, although Americans do say ouch, we also say ow, and in fact I think ow is more common in American English.)  Ouch is an exclamation, like damn or yuck. Each of these is uttered in a specific circumstance and communicates an emotional state or attitude toward the speaker's circumstances.  In this, they are more communicative than sighs or other noises that nonhuman animals also make.  Marco polo (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, as an adult who's been needle-stuck thousands of times (allergy shots and chronic illnesses) I do sometimes just say ouch, in an almost ironically calm manner. But the deeper point is the biological difference between the spontaneous cry of pain and and the word referring to that cry of pain as a word.  It's the biological underpinnings of it that explain the universal /a/ vowel with an offglide in such circumstances.  A stroke victim who's lost her speech will still cry ow, or ay, or ouch when you prick her.  If, however, you ask someone with aphasia what the word people say when they get hurt is, they will find it difficult or impossible to answer with a word.  It is because this is a cry and not a calmly spoken word that people do not say complex words like "Michael Jackson" as the OP asked. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Eric Partridge's A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English might have some fodder for this q. --  Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding to the original question more directly, I think it is a natural impulse to cry out in response to pain. Other primates certainly do so. However, uttering ouch is not simply a natural impulse.  Instead, it is a learned expression.  Children who learn American English learn that they can communicate a feeling of pain (as opposed to anger or other emotions) by crying out ouch.  That is, the natural impulse to cry out is channeled by culture into this American English utterance.  As others have pointed out, other languages have different exclamations for pain.  Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that's at the heart of it here. If you get a tiny injury or pain - like pricking your finger with a needle - then you'll say the word "ouch" to indicate to people around you that you have a minor injury.  If you are in a lot of pain from a much more major injury - then animalistic cries and other non-words will certainly result.  The idea that someone who is involved in a major car wreck would say "ouch!" is flat out comical - precisely because it seems so uncharacteristic of real people.  Similarly, someone who gets a needle prick yelling "Aaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!" at the top of their lungs seems crazy compared to just saying "ouch".  This suggests that there is a clear difference between using a "word" and making a purely reactionary/animal "cry".  It follows then that words like "ouch" might well differ between nations and cultures - as well as change over time - but the underlying pain response is universal and timeless because it's physiologically/evolutionarily demanded rather than a matter of intellectual intervention. SteveBaker (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is true so long as you are not saying that the alternative is merely saying the word "ouch" the way you might say the words "Michael Jackson" on one hand and incoherent 'aarghing' on the other.  There is a quite distinct and universally human middle ground of expletives/interjections which have a learned phonemic form in each language (and person to person) but which have an animalistic emotional impetus rather than an abstract semantic meaning.  Those words are unique in how the brain handles them, separate from normal speech, and revealed in their uniqueness as exhibited in stroke patients and some Tourette's sufferers.  This is widely illustrated in books like The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker.  To miss that very vital point it to address the OP's question on a pre-scientific armchair level. μηδείς (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)