Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 December 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< December 16 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 18 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents


[edit] December 17

[edit] Oil Pumps

I can't seem to find out what the oil pumps that have a swinging boom arm are called any ideas??? Thanks Myth... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.177.169.127 (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Do you mean an oil derrick ? Here's a pic: [1]. StuRat 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Pumpjack (aka "nodding donkey"). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys!! I appreciate it! -Myth

[edit] "Golden ticket" scam

A lot of magazines in the UK contain lottery-type promotions by various companies. These normally consist of a scratchcard or similar which offers fantastic prizes (carribean holidays, £25,000 etc.) if you find the three matching symbols. The thing is: every ticket seems to win. And unless I am freakishly lucky (which I'm not), it's a scam. The commonest method seems to be asking people to send text messages to a premium rate number. However, this rarely costs more than £10, when the prize (guaranteed according to the ticket) is worth at least 10x that. It doesn't appear to be a Lottery scam; the tickets give the address, phone number etc. of the company which issued the ticket, as well as a customer service number, and it seems therefore relatively simple to get a refund under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. So where's the catch? How can the companies make money by giving everybody a prize? Laïka 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the holiday things you describe, but some mail order "prizes" say you've won "a car, a big-screen tv, or a portable music player", and of course you've always won the player, and it's worth about three quid. And you have to pay 4.99 shipping and handling. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know (First thought was advance fee fraud), but I'd suggest seeing if the ASA knows anything about them. 68.39.174.238 06:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
They vary. Always read the (extremely) small print. (Sometimes this is hidden on the inside of the envelope.) This has the complete list of prizes, most of which are not worth the £10 phone call. In one I read recently, your call only bought you "entry into a draw" to win the star prizes. Yes, it is a scam really, but the promoters know the rules and usually manage to stay the right side of the law.--Shantavira 10:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Anything which appears too good to be true usually is. Even if they did have that money to give away, and the tickets really "won" it, they wouldn't last long so there'd be little chance of collecting. --24.147.86.187 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
One very common way they do it is, there is indeed a draw. The catch is, when. Your ticket will be put into a draw in 2015, or some future date.... they only have to hand out one "big prize" and they collect tickets for 1, 2, 3, 5 years first.... its legitimate if underhand. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most popular selling item online

To whom it may concern:

I was wondering...what is the #1 most popular selling item or product sold on the internet today?

I'm looking for several responses to see if there is any concensus.

Thanks.

Rich C.

Great question. I can't find any reference to a single product - and the nature of Internet commerce would probably mean accurate sales figures would be almost impossible to obtain. However, in 1998 Forrester Research calculated that "PCs, porn, CDs—things the consultancy calls “boy-toys”—and gift items such as flowers made up a little over half of all online consumer revenues [the previous year]." [2] Zoom forward to last year and Forrester reports "The most popular categories were travel (at $62 billion), followed by computer hardware and software ($14 billion), autos and auto parts ($13 billion), apparel ($11 billion) and home furnishings ($8 billion)." [3]. Forrester has a prediction for 2006, but will cost you $279 to access it. [4]. Rockpocket 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
books, porn, technical parts and gadgets -- and ISP services and advertising/banner mentions -- might be some candidates. But this is pure guesswork. Don;t forget there's a huge amount of B2B sales too, I guess though you mean consumer items. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weight loss

To whom it may concern:

Q. What is the most reliable and successful weight loss product on the market today?

Rich C.

Reducing your calorific intake and exercising more. Rockpocket 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Exercise. Anchoress 01:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Reducing calorie intake (esp fats)--Light current 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I heard sugar intake was just as important to reduce. If you don't use all the energy sugar gives you directly, it would be stored as fat or something... 惑乱 分からん 03:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sucrose has a high food energy content (4 kilocalories per gram) and is used widely to sweeten foods, thus is a major contributor to the Western, hypercalorific diet. Cutting down on sugar is a good start towards cutting calories. Rockpocket 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you what worked for me: eliminating all meat and poultry from my diet (and replacing it with fish, shellfish, crustaceans, eggs, and cheese), avoiding anything that contains or may contain hydrogenated or partially-hydrogenated oil, and avoiding any foodstuff that contains preservatives, other than harmless stuff like salt, citric acid, and so on. Vranak 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, exercise, eat little, and stay away from sweets.
This is the most grevious mistake ever. A diet has to be indefinitely sustainable. If you aren't eating yourself to satiation on a regular basis, it will not be sustainable. Vranak 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hiring a trainer can make you lose a pound a week sometimes. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In short, weight loss products are usually unreliable if you don't alter your life style to match. Exercise and adjusting what you eat will have more effect (without yo-yoing). 0- Mgm|(talk) 20:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah I forgot! most important: cut down on alcohol- its fattening.--Light current 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Get a high-energy job. I've heard that running a preschool or daycare is especially good -- running around after a gaggle of three-year-olds will burn off pounds like you wouldn't believe. --Carnildo 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Q. What is the most reliable and successful weight loss product on the market today?

A. The Army.

220.239.110.225 10:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Look up the article on Metabolic typing as well. Point is, there may not be any one "best" for everybody, otherwise we'd all use it. Most diets work for some, not others. A good diet is one that works with your body, reducess hunger and snack pangs, and is combined with exercise. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction services

Are there any legitimate mail order bride or marrage introduction services and how would I obtain a list? When you search online for one they come up by the hunreds but I am hesitant to try one. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rider Jay (talk • contribs) 01:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I looked at some of these agencies a while back and this one, Elena's, seemed the most legit to me based on the way they conduct their business. There are others too that seem pretty legit; don't know about any list though --Justanother 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Our article on Mail-order bride provides some sources of information. See for example here Rockpocket 02:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snack bars

I have a large supply of organic muesli. Is there a simple way of making this into nice tasting snack bars for taking out with me? I prefer solutions without baking.--Light current 01:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: The muesli contains nuts (of various sorts), oats and fruit.--Light current 14:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're a bird, you could try mixing it with lard. Vitriol 01:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you having a lark?--Light current 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Dry muesli can be rather hard to swallow. StuRat 14:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Microwave some marshmallows to soften them up, then mix them with the muesli and form into bars. Allow to cool and harden. StuRat 02:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oooooh, that's a really good idea! Anchoress 02:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually tried that?--Light current 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Not personally, no. StuRat 12:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like Rice Krispie treats. Dismas|(talk) 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mix it with little bits of unsalted butter, and brown sugar, and cinnamon, spread it on a baking sheet, and bake it until it smells nice! At least, that works with just oats. Should work with muesli too. Vranak 03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Add some nuts, honey, and all of the above. You're going to have too many recepies. ;-) | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I was looking for something simple like: mix with honey for sweetness and roll out on kitchen table. Then cut into slices. Would that work- or would it need heating?--Light current 14:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
They wouldn't be very hard, but would remain limp. Baking is one way to remove the moisture. Adding something to harden it is another idea. I believe marshmallows already contain thickeners (probably gum arabic or something similar), so that's why I suggested them. StuRat 15:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but the muesli is very dry as it comes already. I need something to moisten it and bind it.--Light current 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Honey+Muesli = luxury Flapjack am I right? This shouldn't need baking - but it would be hard work to mix the honey and muesli intimately - I've tried this (plus milk powder) and it sticks together (sort of) A press might help if you don't want to cook it87.102.13.235 16:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah now thats more like it! I agree mixing may be a problem. Maybe you need to let the honey soak in over night? then squeeze out any xs. Could be messy--Light current 17:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In practice - it absorbs a lot of honey - and it's very slow to absorb (honey isn't all that runny). I'd suggest a christmas pudding type preparation - make the mixture at least weeks before you want to use it.. (You'd probably need more honey than muesli by volume).83.100.132.121 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Bring 1/2 cup milk, 1/2 cup butter, 1 cup sugar, 3 tablespoons cocoa powder, 4 tablespoons peanut butter to a rigorous boil for 2 minutes. Pull off the heat and stir in 3 cups of the muesli. Pour into a shallow pan to set. You can use honey or molasses instead of sugar and milk and you don't have to use the cocoa powder if you want it to be more healthy. I think your idea would work if you soften the honey a bit over heat before you mix in the muesli. -sthomson 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha An actual recipe! Great Thanks. But Qs:
  1. Could I use mergerine instead of butter?
  2. And must I use peanut butter- its very fattening?

--Light current 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes.
  2. Only if you find a substitute.


Try looking about your cupboard, I'm sure you'll find something. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scam

How can you tell if any investment or financial scheme is a scam? Are there any telltale signs? TQ. --61.6.206.104 04:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you read MLM, Ponzi scheme, HYIP, Pyramid scheme, scam, fraud? Anchoress 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
And to summarise, there are a few telltale signs, although more info would be good. One, if you are expected to get other people to participate it's usually a scam. Two, if you 'win' something but must pay something in order to claim your winnings, it's almost always a scam. Three, if you are asked to give personal information like banking info, credit card info, etc, it's almost always a scam. Four, if it's explained to you, but you just really can't figure out how everyone's supposed to make money. Things that aren't always dangerous but are warning signs: You're asked to keep it a secret; it's related to someone you don't know - a 'friend of a friend', someone offshore, etc; it's supposedly to help someone out of a jam, but somehow you're going to strike it rich at the same time; it's a great, sure thing investment that happens to be the best-kept secret in the investment world. Anchoress 05:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

To give you more info, I find the scheme well orchestrated as it has stark similarities with the multilevel marketing (MLM) concept in which the lead member would solicit for more members to form a network of member under the lead member, hence multilevel. The scope of multilevel marketing scheme as we know it is usually limited to consumer products such as health and beauty, appliances, etc. and it is indeed a legitimate marketing scheme. The one which I came across is that deals with money or cash between the members. Unlike most financial investment, membership under this scheme only requires as little as $20 and the return is deposited into the member's online account on daily basis. What's more, the principal or invested sum can be withdrawn on demand and to top it off, one may draw on the whole investment after after 100 days or so. I also understand that upon withdrawal, the payment is made through the lead member who may make use of his/her networks of members across the organisation to gather sufficient funds in case of any shortfall anywhere in the system. Does this sound like a scam? That's what I call literally money makes money. --61.6.206.104 06:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a ponzi scheme, which is the pure cash version of MLM. The question you should be asking yourself is, how is the money making money? In ponzi schemes, the early investors typically win big, but later investors make nothing and some lose their principal. In a closed system (100 investors each investing $20), if anyone walks out of the project with more than they invested, then someone else will leave with less. Unless the money is coming from somewhere else? Is that the case? Anchoress 07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and that's exactly what I told my friend about the inner workings of this scheme. It seems enticing and the early birds may benefit while those come later may lose their investment completely. I warned him against it but he wouldn't listen as it's not much of a loss for just $20 anyway. But we never know when human desire meets temptation. Thanks. --61.6.206.104 07:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, it may very well be illegal. StuRat 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you tell if something's a scam? There's a simple rule I like - "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is." Sort of cuts right to the point. --jjron 13:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, but every once in a while something "too good to be true" really takes off, like Google or Youtube. So, be skeptical, but don't completely reject anything in that category, out of hand. StuRat 15:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Google was never really "too good to be true", though. It was just a very odd business strategy (building up enough name recognition through free services that one could easily branch into pay services), one which only could work in the information age (and had a very high chance of failure). And in any case, exceptions often only prove the rule — the one or two dotcom successes are only really remarkable when compared to the sea of failures. --24.147.86.187 19:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. And most things like Google, Youtube, etc don't hound people to join up and give them money with huge promises of riches in any case. Also don't overlook the "probably" in the aphorism, which I think is really the point StuRat is making anyway. --jjron 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sites with intelligence training

I am trying to find websites that have intelligence training. Ideally, ones that have free access or at least free trials. 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)211.30.5.124

Do you mean improving your intellect? Or espionage? Anchoress 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean improving my intellect. You know, the sort of thing that is claimed to keep you intelligent, alert, etc despite aging211.30.5.124 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Try doing a 5* Sudoku puzzle every day. It's my personal anti-Alzheimer's strategy! --G N Frykman 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I may be biased, but think that reading Wikipedia articles, or Ref Desk questions, and contributing to them, is an excellent way to keep your brain active. StuRat 12:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not biased; it's true. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossword puzzles, Sudoku, and similar games are very good; so is studying anything you're interested in. Exercising your memory is also beneficial - going back over things you've memorized in the past for example, or trying to recall details about places you've been familiar with (childhood homes, etc). Playing music and dancing also engage the brain in healthy ways, and I suspect visual arts like drawing and painting are similary beneficial. Finally, a good diet can help tremendously; I believe vitamins B and C are supposed to be good for brain function. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] info on a movie

Can you give me any info on a movie that aired once, it was called Amerika. Any information will be appreciated. thank you, shirley. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.40.83.112 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Amerika (TV miniseries) may be what you're looking for. It came up using the search box to the left; maybe give that a try next time, as it will save you some time. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rape

There's always been talk about woman raping guys. how is it possible. don't men have enoguh muscle power to prevent this from happening? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.88.164.105 (talk • contribs).

That's a stereotype. Not all women are weaker than all men, just as not all men are the same strength as one another. As well, women with training in the martial arts, or a weapon, can overpower men stronger than them. There's always psychological weakness and age differences too. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, a predatory woman might take advantage of the fact that lots of men don't want to hurt a woman. Anchoress 09:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
But even still? What does it mean when a woman rapes a man, I never got this. Do they mean that the woman managed to force the man to have sex with her (because she's older or because she's beating him up or whatever)? Because - due to male and female anatomy- I don't understand how a woman can force herself onto a man?Evilbu 12:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There are two quite different defs of "rape". The older and universally accepted meaning is to force somebody into sex against their will. The newer def is much broader, and includes cases where "consent can't legally be given", such as consensual sex with somebody below the age of consent. Other people deemed unable to give consent might include those who are intoxicated, mentally retarded, unconscious, in a subservient social role, etc. Now, as for women raping men, that could use either term. A woman with a gun could certainly force a man to do sexual things he did not want to do, possibly including intercourse (men sometimes get erections even when in fear). The term could also be applied to a woman who has sex with an underage boy, even if he is a willing participant. In a truly bizarre legal definition of rape, two underage kids who have sex can also both be charged with raping each other, in some jurisdictions (these laws aren't enforced, however).StuRat 12:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Depending on your jurisdiction, you may also want to distinguish between "rape" and "sexual assault"; in English law, for example, a woman can never commit "rape", because the legal definition of "rape" requires the insertion of the penis of a human male by the perpetrator. As women don't posess these, they cannot commit "rape". --Mnemeson 12:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe the law has been changed now to define rape to include insertion of any object into any orifice. (except the ears)--Light current 14:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure about the nostrils either. THat might just be picking a fight, or possibly GBN (Greivous bodily nosepicking. 8-|--Light current 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Where?martianlostinspace 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, it is important to remember that drugs may be involved. While it is unlikely that a small-framed woman could drag a larger man back to some alley, it may be likely that an already inebriated man could be drugged up a bit more so he 'wouldn't care.' 209.247.21.179 16:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defined "rape" to require 'penile penetration', and also created the offense of "assault by penetration" (as a distinct crime from rape, this can be perpetrated by women). Our article on that act does say that rape has since been redefined, apparently to basically make the definition for 'rape' the same as was for 'assault by penetration', but that comment is unsourced, and I'm not familiar with an act that did this, I may have missed it, but I believe(d) the 2003 act and definition remains in effect. --Mnemeson 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm, doesn't English law have the principle that someone who participates in the crime is equally guilty? So wouldn't, say, Karla Homolka be considered a rapist in the UK? --Trovatore 18:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, woman-on-man rape does exist and has occured.

I remember learning in Gender Psychology, back in 2002, that a Western researcher encountered a peculiar occurence on one of the islands (or group of islands) in the South Pacific, many many decades ago, perhaps even in the 19th century.

Apparently, a group of young women would pin down and rape a lone young male (taking turns of course), and after they were finished, defecate and urinate on him. I do not recall enough particulars of this observation, to provide something cite-able, but I am neither making it up, nor did I dream it. Remember though, this was decades if not centuries ago. Vranak 20:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Amendment -- I also recalled this morning, that this was an inter-tribal phenomenon, so the young girls did not take advantage of and humilate young boys within their own community. It was a tribal-warfare thing. Vranak 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

TMI! Really!--Light current 20:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a notorious case of an ex-beauty queen obsessed with a Mormon missionary.[5] She got a male friend to help kidnap the victim. Clarityfiend 22:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't remember the exact date or even year, but this would have been around 1976-79 I suppose, some UK mens magazine published a 4 or 5 page article interviewing women who gang-raped men "for entertainment". The description - both psychological and physical - was quite adequately detailed to be plausible. The rough description of the physical "how do they do it" side was roughly - a victim was chosen in advance (not off the streets) and enticed to visit a predetermined location by one of the women. Not hard as most guys will be relatively easy to entice to a location if a woman wishes it. A number of the women would appear and roughly surround or approach the victim. The man was described as being roughly "puzzled and unsure but not violent or fearful" at that point, and would not anticipate needing to act in respect of his own safety. he could then be seized and held en masse or "if powerful or struggling" secured to a frame or other fixture - "is a must". The description thereafter can be summarized as saying that although one usually thinks of men as desiring to engage in sexual acts, acts under such duress are every part as much rape as any act on a woman, and can change their life and feelings and emotions too. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Having experienced a bit of minor sexual harassment in the workplace myself, I can say that like all things, it goes both ways. Vranak 21:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

/

How does gang rape of a male work? What about the Refractory period? And after only a few orgasms it's impossible to retain an erection --frothT C 07:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a totaly wierd thing to say but then so is most of the above part of this question, BUT... in theory at least a man could be drugged with a cocktail of drugs including viagra, this would maintain an errection for quite a while I think, though I have noidea how long.AMX 19:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a variety of drugs that can cause a man to have an errection for a long period of time and at the same time be unable to orgasm. I hear the results are quite painful and posibly perminently dammaging though, so they are not used recriationaly often.

[edit] Question

I am a blogger at the popular website, www.steeplemedia.com (actually the "in-training" webmaster) and I was wanted to know a few things. 1) Would I be able to have an article on Wikipedia about it? 2) If so, I couldnt figure out which topic i should put it under (on the Request Articles page). and 3) I would create the article my self but I would never have the time to sit and figure out how to format it correctly.

If anyone could help that would be awesome!!

Thanks --Zach 07:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEB. Unless you've been covered in newspapers or other reliable sources, you shouldn't create an article, and even then, creating one of a website you're involved in is a bad idea. --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I recommend not doing so, If someone a senior editor spots it they will most likely AFD it and It will be deleted. — SeadogTalk 16:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks for your help!! --Zach 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newtonmas

Why is Newtonmas deleted and protected on Wikipedia? Is it because it's secular? I can't see why really. Newtonmas and Wikipedia are similar in many ways, on Newtonmas people are ment to share gifts of knowledge such as books, and Wikipedia is even saying "You can give the gift of knowledge by donating to the Wikimedia Foundation!". Or has this place been infultrated by radical Evangelical nutcases? Thanks. 84.70.132.226 15:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for signing your name - not all newcomers do. You might like to ask [6]: s/he's the dude who deleted it.martianlostinspace 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not because "it's secular"—Wikipedia has articles on all sorts of topics from all sorts of points of view. Take a look at the deletion debate about it. It seems to have been deleted because it did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies. --24.147.86.187 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. 84.69.184.101 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SACD Players

I found your discussion of SACD very interesting and exciting. I could not determine exactly what is needed electronically, Hi Fi wise, to get the system to work. Do I need two preamps and two amplifiers? I am a loyal dynaco fan, but I have more than two amps and two preamps, is this sufficient or do I need something more, or is this multichannel something else entirely. In other words is it possible to take, say, 4 channels from the SACD player as two sets of two, or three sets of two and amplify separately? I hope you understand my confusion. Do I need three preamps and three amps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.30.237 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

SACD is at the minimum two channel - so you'd need a 'set up' capable of reproducing stereo at the very least. I'd guess that most (or at least some) players can downmix multichannel to stereo as well.
Multichannel eg 5.1 is 5 normal channels (front(center), left, right, rear left, rear right) plus a separate low frequency channel. To reproduce this fully you'd need 5 amps+speaker and a special subwoofer amp and speaker.
Modern multichannel recievers/decoders can downmix multichannel to stereo as well - if you don't want to buy all those extra amps and speakers.
A SACD doesn't have to be multichannel - it may just be stereo (of a higher quality than CD), the ouput depends on the disc you are playing.
SACD multichannel goes up to 6 channels - so you could need up to 6 amp/speaker.
The SACD disc will say (somewhere) on it exactly how many channels are used - I'm not sure what is normal for such a disc.
As for taking 4 outputs as two sets of two - i guess you mean join left rear and left to make one channel and right rear and right to make one channel - something like that - yes this is possible to do if you want to - though I wouldn't suggest just 'joining them together via a stereo to mono plug. - You could end up shorting out the op-amps - if you want to do this I recommend a special mixer - eg like a mixing desk to do it, but you will have lost the multichannel effects..(Please ask more questions if I didn't 'get it')83.100.132.121 18:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does this mean?

Hi, could someone please tell me what "His flower-like hands embraced the thorn" means? Thanks. Itsjusthel 17:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC) X

Yes, it is a simile hugging a metaphor. Can't tell you more without a lot more context. --Justanother 18:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I dont know the context either, someone asked me and I thought of 'Wikipedia. Itsjusthel 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds dirty to me, but perhaps that says more about me than the quote. :-) StuRat 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Googling 'embraced the thorn' returns several Christian sites, but none with exactly that quote. Anchoress 16:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It sounds religious, but not neccisarily Christian. Or it could be dirty :-) Of course, some Christian metaphors do sound dirty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.234.249.203 (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Do my lifetime achievements matter in the great scheme of things?

Serious question - nothing sinister underlying it. I am male, happily married (second-time - first time a disaster), 59, British, University Graduate, ex-Civil Servant, Retired, Children, Grand-Children, Solvent, no Criminal Record (not even a parking ticket), saw the Beatles and the Stones performing live on stage, "straight", politically middle-of-the-road, never published a book, or wrote a piece of music, or gave a lecture, or won an award from The Queen: have no entry in Who's Who; not an alumni, got lots of friends and ex-friends all over the world, don't care about religion or race or supremacist faiths, think the world is a beautiful place to be, wish everyone else thought the same. I suppose there must be millions like me, very content with my life overall and looking forward to years more to come - not desperate to change anything significant. But - I am increasingly conscious in a big way of how much I do not know about the world I live in, and even more conscious of how little (if anything) I have done to improve the world I will one day leave behind. Don't want a monument or memorial service in St Paul's Cathedral but would like to face my Maker and be able to say, "But for me.......................". Any suggestions?

Sure, find a group that is doing work that you believe in and support them. It would be great if you are in a position to work full-time for a group you believe in. Get politically active too, if you are not already. Point is, join with like-minded; you can do a lot more that way. Also, your entire comment reminds me a lot of Saving Private Ryan; the scene where old Ryan is asking "Have I lived a good life?". Always chokes me up. So have you? That is not really the question though; the fact that you ask this question tells me that you know you should be doing more. Good for you! --Justanother 18:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You can of course immortalize yourself by writing a featured article; it will be read by wikipedia users and plagiarized by students forever. More seriously, is it really necessary to achieve something great and monumental to influence the world? Can't you live on in, say, a joke or an idea you shared with your friends or the way you helped shape how your children look at the world? As Pessoa said, everyone who ever lived is still alive somewhere.[citation needed] Skarioffszky 19:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


The "great scheme of things" is not fully known to humans, although many groups and traditions will gladly tell you they know the answers. A number of traditions comment that the answer varies depending what level you look at it:
  • In earthly life, your achievements live on in the lives of all they touch
all the way through to:
  • There is no "one" to "achieve anything, it is illusion in the eye of [[consciousness].
Probably you didn't think Wikipedia would have an answer for you. But it does. Check out our article on Meaning of life. Also look up nondual, mysticism, as articles whose subjects quite directly address the same field, and may contain thought-provoking ideas if the question is a real one for you.
Outside Wikipedia, three books I can immediately think of which you might also enjoy are: "Only love is real" (Dr Brian Weiss), "The Invitation" (Oriah Mountain Dreamer note this is the book, not the poem of the same name), and "The Bridge Across Forever" (Richard Bach), all touching on the same isssues from different perspectives.
Ultimately most traditions seem to split into two - the ones that regard life as something one does to "get" something (praise, recognition, remembered, heaven) ... and those that view life as only mattering now, each moment, where what you personally do only matters as you live it. The question for you is, does it matter what the future thinks. if you develop your own view on what a good life should be, the standards it should embody, and then live that way, you surely will not be doing too much wrong. There is an old jewish commentary that states you will be asked by God, why you didn't enjoy the (permissible) enjoyable things in life as well, and alsoone that says we are not expected to complete the work of creation, but neither are we free to ignore it and do nothing. In other words, a balanced and honest caring life, and let God (or whatever is out there) worry about the judging. You are a part of existence, and as such you matter in the same way the number "3" does to mathematics... its one number equal to all others, but also it is by nature irreplacable, needed, and unique.
Happy existence and new year! FT2 (Talk | email) 19:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It depends on how you define "in the great scheme of things". Reading articles like ultimate fate of the universe (especially the heat death option, which seems most probable at the moment) can make one feel like nothing that anyone does on this planet will ever amount to a hill of beans "in the great scheme of things". But helping a child live and learn can make one feel like every little thing can matter "in the great scheme of things". It depends where you set your sights and your scope. Most of the people who have had major effects on the entire world have been monsters. A rare few have helped for the better. It's not necessarily an enviable position. Remember Candide's conclusion: start by "tending your own garden," taking care of the things closest to you. If you can do that, you'll be better off than most of us, and the results will be more or less immediate. That's my philosophy, anyway. --24.147.86.187 19:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to sound mean, but the very asking of this question reveals doubt. Vranak 20:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that your question is classic mid-life crisis. That does not make less of the question just points out that many have faced it and there is lots of helpful info and support to be found. --Justanother 20:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I had my mid-life crisis at around age 16. Vranak 03:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to answer this question yourself - society's opinion of you means nothing. Only you can judge yourself. (That's the direction I'm coming from.) Or to be more to the point - given what you've told us - No. they don't. It's pathetic. You really are a non-entity. Sorry!83.100.132.121 20:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC) By the way you clearly don't seem to know the difference between 'me' and 'society' - you've painted a picture of a non-individual - take a look at mid-life crisis, or better still Individuation, or any of these Cultural identity, Identity, Individualism, Person, Self (philosophy), Self (sociology), Self (psychology). Now I can return to my miserable existence. Thank you.83.100.132.121 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively - Pull your socks up and make a contribution to the world instead of just filling your belly and your pockets! how does that sound.83.100.132.121 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I really do want to say thank you to all the above respondents who took the time and the trouble to take an active interest in my life - and its meaning and worth. I regard all the comments as valuable to me, without exception, especially the last one from the psychiatric hospital matron who advises me to 'pull my socks up'. A few of the comments have focused too closely on the literal interpretation of my OP question without considering the context of my expansion, but no worry, I still appreciate their contributions. But I especially thank Justanother for his/her input - I had already thought of mid-life-crisis but thought that too trite for someone like me who as well as having seen the Beatles and the Stones performing live, had also had Diana Ross sit on my knee on my 21st birthday, and sing, "Baby Love", in my left ear. Justanother is absolutely correct, I still have much to do and starting tomorrow, I am going to follow the advice given by Skarrioffszky. Thanks to all - immensely. And I intend to once again, skinny dip in the Meditteranean and the Pacific, minus my watch that can withstand mega sub-terranean atmospheres.
You are very welcome. Though I think a "psychiatric hospital matron" would be more interested in giving you your medication than telling you to "Pull your socks up". That sort of stuff usually comes from your dad (laff). Or maybe your best friend (mine tells me to "count your blessings" when I am feeling down). --Justanother 00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank yoy for calling me 'matron' - a merry christmas to you.83.100.250.252 09:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the "typical" solution is to get religion. You might not be interested but religious people do seem to get the most satisfaction out of life --frothT C 08:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] japanese seapost to USA

In the 30th seapost was sent to USA by HIYE Maru, HEIAN MARU, TATSUTA MARU, ASAMA MARU, HIKAWA MARU, SHIZUOKA MARU; YOKOHAMA MARU Who knows anything about the boat class, schedule or duration of its journeys redjul

Maru is not a class of ships, but a word attached to many Japanese merchant vessels: Japanese_ship_naming_conventions#Maru. Tatsuta Maru, Shizuoka Maru, Asama Maru, and Yokohama Maru were operated by Nippon Yasen Kaisha (Japan Mail Steamship Company). Shizuoka and Yokohama were both some four thousand tons and built in 1912. Asama and Tatsuta may have been sister ships constructed at the Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard circa 1927. Shizuoka was lost April of 1933 when she ran aground on a reef off the northern tip of Yap, there is an account of the incident in Bodley, R.V.C. (1933). A Japanese Omelette: A British Writer's Impressions of the Japanese Empire. Tokyo: Hokuseido Press, pp. 193-206. OCLC 4423561.  A letter to Prince Konoye dispatched from San Francisco March 22 and carried aboard Tatsuta Maru arrived in Japan April 11. I'm finding a few other random facts about the ships, for instance the HMS Liverpool intercepted Asama Maru January 21, 1940 outside Yokohama and removed twenty-one Nazi officials who we enroute from the U.S., if you are interested.EricR 23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title or suggestion please

I'm unsure where to post this request. Could someone suggest the appropriate article covering government misrepresentation, censorship or mediation, in science? (ie, the correct subject title for the practice whereby scientific research and findings can be slanted to suit political agendas.)

Censorship doesn't seem quite right, there probably is some better page but I can't think what. It's an important subject not covered in censorship, and I'd like to see what is said about it in other articles if any, or what title such an article might be given (if written).

[Also posted on RFC]. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific censorship? Here is a google of that. Also suppression of infomation; spin; sanitizing. --Justanother 19:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's a specific term for specifically government misrepresentation of specifically scientific information. If you want to emphasize the government aspect, you call it "spin". If you want to emphasize the scientific aspect, you call it "bias" or "misrepresentation" or "censorship" or "scientific misconduct" or whatever. I'm not sure there's a catchall that emphasizes both at the same time. --24.147.86.187 19:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
If you are desirous of creating an article on that based on the USEPA global warming report issue and other issues related to perhaps stem-cell research or right-to-life issue then I think entitling the article "Scientific censorship" or similar would be fine. --Justanother 20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The words fraud and quackery spring to mind, whether or not there's government involvement. Tending toward government involvement, there's hegemony and social engineering. American authors Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have written much on this sort of thing. Vranak 20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for information on PH Mourey 1840 - 1910

I have very little information on the Sculpture Phillipe H Mourey (1840-1910), I know he worked for Japy Freres & Cie the clockmakers Beaucourt France in around 1870. I'm most interested to find out about his life story and if any photographs exist of him. How many other clocks did he design and what other work did he do apart from the clock designs. Thanks --Michael Fitzpatrick 19:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seasonal question

When did the old pagan mid winter festival get taken over by the Christians and become Christmas?--Light current 20:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was at the time that Christianity was starting to become popular throughout the world. Didn't they do it to make the tansitition from Paganism to Christianity easier? Cbrown1023 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Christmas#History, "It is unknown exactly when or why December 25 became associated with Jesus' birth." However, the article does give a fair bit of background on earlier festivals around the winter solstice and the gradual transition to celebrating Christmas around that time of year. — QuantumEleven 22:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly when the early Christians first started to celebrate the birth of Jesus on 25 December cannot be determined with any precision, though it was a well-established practice by the middle of the fourth century. But why they chose December 25 is a question that is far easier to answer: it was a date closely associated with an important mid-winter holiday and several religious festivals throughout the ancient world. It simply made good sense to transfer popular celebrations from one form of religious practice to another. Saturnalia, the festival of Saturn, had been celebrated by the Romans for generations in late December, the high point of which was 25 December, the winter solstice. In the third century the Emperor Aurelian gave the day an even greater sacred focus by bringing the cult of Sol Invictus-the all conquering sun-from the east. The birthday of Sol Invictus was celebrated on 25 December. The day is also associated with the worship of Mithras, Osiris and Dionysus, uniting Persian, Egyptian and Greek traditions. As the Bible itself makes no mention of the date of Jesus' birth, and it was celebrated by different Christian groups on various dates, from January right through to May, it made better political sense, especially as the number of converts began to grow, to centre the event on a day that people were already familiar with. Incidentally, the whole question of Christ's birth, and the celebration of Christmas, became a matter of some contention after the Reformation. Stricter Protestant sects dismissed the festival as a pagan practice devoid of scriptural authority; and it was finally banned outright in the seventeenth century by the Commonwealth of England. This hostility towards Christmas continued amongst some groups right into the late Victorian age, as those of you familiar with Edmund Gosse's memoir, Father and Son, may recall. Clio the Muse 23:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the winter solstice was 21 or 22 Dec. But thanks anyway. 8-)--Light current 12:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It was 25 December on the Julian calendar. Clio the Muse 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure about that, Clio? The Gregorian Calendar was introduced in 1582, and it advanced the dates by 10 days. Thus, 4 October 1582 was immediately followed by 15 October 1582 (in those countries that adopted it at that time). 21/22 December (Gregorian) was 11/12 December Julian. When the Gregorian calendar was adopted in Britain, 1752, the lag had become 12 days. Immediately before that time, when the rest of the Gregorian-using world was noting the solstice on 21/22 December, Britain was calling those days 9/10 December. I can't see how the solstice could ever have occurred on 25 December under any calendar. JackofOz 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Have a look on the Saturnalia page, Jack, under Saturnalia's Relation to Christmas. I imagine there was considerable slippage over time on the original date, but I am not an expert on calendars, I must confess. Clio the Muse 12:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither am I, although I've studied it a lot over the years. I think the salient point is that the Gregorian calendar did not retrospectively change any dates prior to 15 October 1582. The Julian Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar are discontinuous. The proleptic Gregorian calendar is a tool that manipulates pre-1582 dates for scientific purposes, but has no relevance to the actual dating of events that occurred prior to 15 October 1582 (Gregorian). The date of the winter solstice may well have varied back in Roman times, but whether it did or not, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Gregorian calendar introduced almost 600 years later. JackofOz 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Didn't it say in the The Da Vinci Code that it was because the Romans wanted to overshadow the pagan festivals that took place on the solstice? So they said Jesus was born on the 25th? Of course, the book is fiction, but idk...it sounded possible to me. FruitMart07 00:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willy On Wheels

Everywhere on Wikipedia there is something about Willy On Wheels. Who the heck was Willy On Wheels? I heard that he was some sort of vandal but I've looked everywhere and nothing says what he did. Was he like the "devil" in a sense? Thanks. Ilikefood 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Page move vandal. Best to google it as it is a disallowed article here. --Justanother 21:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2006 November 23#Willy On Wheels.  --LambiamTalk 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to write something up on him, see User:68.39.174.238/Newgatery. Basically, he was one of the early vandals. 68.39.174.238 22:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
See also WP:DENY. We have removed most discussions of him. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Holy crud, User:68.39.174.238! How did he change the Wikipedia Logo like that? Thats crazy! Just how did he manage to do that without people noticing for a few minutes? Ilikefood 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhuh, see WP:BEANS. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Basically he found out that that image was hosted on Commons and he overwrote it. I don't remember what image name it was, or if it even still exists, but after that it was protected indefinately. I know similar things have happened elsewhere. 68.39.174.238 12:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What would happen if, say, some user who had never vandalized before suddenly claimed that they were WoW and then still didn't vandalize? Would you think that they were doing it for atention or would you ask an admin to block him/her? Ilikefood 00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It has happened a few times before, but I don't recall the users. There was one user (a full name with a female first name beginning with R) whose name I do not fully recall, who claimed to be WoW who had reformed, and she was blocked, but of course the whole thing was suspicious. I also think there were a few users who created accounts with "on Wheels" or something similar, not realizing the immense faux pas, and were immediately blocked. I used to know more about the matter. --Philosophus T 10:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The user User:Jesus On Wheels is legitimate, so is User:Wheels. 68.39.174.238 08:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] timewasting questions

Im quite disturbed by all the timewasting questions being asked on wikipedia reference desks lately. Dont you have a method to find and silence the perpretators for Gods sake? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.74.96.197 (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes, we ask you to please stop. Please stop. Thank you. --Justanother 23:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Well, we could block all people in the world from editing Wikipedia and then throw the server into the atlantic ocean after filling it with jell-o, or we could launch the server into the sun, or hire an assassin to kill everyone who ever used Wikipedia, but aside from that I just can't figure out anything else... </sarcasm>Ilikefood 00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

MMgghhh! I see you are intelligent woman. we also have intelligent woman in my country. We like your fightiness Justanother. So just to keep peace between our two countries, I say we equal OK?

o yes I forget. My freind Igor (my servant) say he like you very much and can he meet you sometime, someplace?

In my experience, 'waste' is highly under-rated. And time is highly over-rated. Vranak 03:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The following answer assumes that the questioner is asking in good faith and tries to seriously address the question for the benefit of the questioner and other RD readers. Please do not delete this answer or this thread. A few serious points. First, the borderline between time wasting questions and useful questions is not clear cut. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume someone repeatedly posts questions here that everyone agrees are time wasting or trolling. If they are an anonymous contributor there is very little we can do, beyond deleting the questions - if they repeatedly post from the same IP, then I believe an IP block is available, but that is a blunt instrument which could block other innocent bystanders too. If they are a signed-in editor then there are a range of sanctions, escalating from asking them politely to remove the question, up to a block or total ban for repeat offenders (and there is a big ongoing debate over when and how these sanctions should be applied, and whether we need guidelines to discourage abuse of these sanctions). This is pretty much like the situation with vandalism of Wiki articles (see WP:VAND) except that Wiki articles can be protected or semi-protected. Well, we could semi-protect the RDs so that only signed-in editors could post here, but that would defeat the purpose of the RDs as a resource for the "general public". FWIW, my view is that the best and simplest approach is to just ignore questions that we think are not worth answering. Gandalf61 09:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Since this discussion is about the ref desks, it should probably be on the talk page, no? Anchoress 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted this previously and somebody deletd it, which is very, very rude: How about you just ignore them instead of making a big deal? --Nelson Ricardo 02:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that it was deleted maliciously; we had a lot of problems yesterday with posts disappearing due to database lag. I checked the edit history and as far as I can tell, your post disappeared between when you posted it and when Gandalf61 posted his comment, somehow deleted during an unrelated post. This is typical of what was happening yesterday. Anchoress 19:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
HERE is where your post got deleted, along with a lot of other stuff it seems. I don't think it was malicious; that kind of thing was happening all day yesterday. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by database error. :-) Anchoress 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I can understand being upset but this was a glitch, see Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Disappearing stuff --Justanother 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"So just to keep peace between our two countries, I say we equal OK?" In Soviet Russia, peace keeps YOU!! 64.90.198.6 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:TROLL | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_Archives_Miscellaneous_2006_December_17_2244.html"