Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 March 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous desk
< March 22	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

1 March 23

[edit] March 23

[edit] Importance of Wizards of the Coast to Hasbro

What percentage of Hasbro's revenue and profit are attributable to Wizards of the Coast? What percentages of this are from D&D and M:TG? Neon Merlin 03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle John's Bathroom Reader

How reliable, as a source, is Uncle John's Bathroom Reader? I have one and when I find something interesting I wonder if I should add the info to one of the articles here. Dismas|^(talk) 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you trust these people to provide adequate editorial oversight and fact-checking? If you find something interesting and would like to add it to an article, why not list it here and see if someone can find an appropriate source?—eric 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have a source yourself, it's a bad idea to add it to the article. I would mention it on the talk page instead or go looking for sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have one and there are hundreds of blatantly incorrect facts and even more over-simplifications that are at best half true --⁪froth^t 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, arg. It would be nice if I could use it... There's a bunch of stuff in them! Dismas|^(talk) 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

How do you deal with the fact that you are going to die? A.Z. 07:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You either live with it, or you die. Those are your options. Most people tend not to think about it, which makes it easier, I suppose. Rockpocket 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not everyone would agree with this binary explanation :-). Philosophers, theologians, psychiatrists and psychologists, not to mention literary authors, have written a great deal on this topic for a long time. Strategies of coping with the "trauma of nonbeing" can be fluid and dynamic and depend on circumstance. The Kübler-Ross model is one description that might apply to the terminally-ill, for example. The articles on anxiety#Existential_anxiety and existential crisis might yield some starting points for reading influential books on the topic. I'll leave it up to the resourceful editors to compile a more meaningful overview. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Camus wrote a lot about that. He was interested in why people so feverishly tried to avoid thinking about death.. he concluded that you had to recognize death but just not think about it: "People may create meaning in their own lives, which may not be the objective meaning of life but still provides something for which to strive. However, he insisted that one must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd lest the fictitious meaning take the place of the absurd." --⁪froth^t 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What? I'm going to die? OH DEAR GOD! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not something that worries me: Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (Isaiah 22:13). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Be wary though Twas Now. The man said unto himself 'You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy;eat,drink and be merry'.But God said to him 'You fool!This very night thy soul shall be required of thee'(Luke 12:19-20) Lemon martini 11:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't treat death as some horrible, unexpected tragedy. You know it's going to happen someday, so live while you can and make the best possible contribution to the world every day, and die happy. JackofOz 11:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All the good stories are in the Old Testament. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the Angel of Death.The time of purification is at hand.Prepare to be reaped Lemon martini 13:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A child might not be able to deal with the death of his parents, his pets, or himself. But he sees Fluffy the cat get old and die or get hit by a car. Gramps has a heart attack and dies. He grows up and sees his parents age and die. If he is good at inductive logic, he may realize that someday the number will be up for him as well. He may spend time with the elderly who see death as a release from pain, and who teach him that death is just as much a part of life as birth. Death holds less horror and inspires less fear if you see your elders go to it without fear, or if you see young people with cancer die a good death. Religion may teach him that human life in this world is as transitory as that of grass, and that we are here temporarily, with eternal life to follow. At the same time there are random and tragic deaths of those taken too young, and which seem to have no purpose. Then there is the chance that in an afterlife all mysteries are made clear. Edison 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you KNOW that there is 'eternal life' to follow, nobody can be certain of that and for myself I hope it is not true.--88.111.180.64 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edison did not say there was, just that a child may learn this from religion, as a way to cope with the knowledge that they will die. Skittle 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a strong atheist - and I firmly believe that death is a more or less sudden extinction of the mind. No after-life, no nothing. But think about this...if you were a Buddhist and you believed in reincarnation - would that be more comforting than sudden nothingness? How about with the belief that none of your conscious mind or memories or thoughts would be carried through into the next incarnation? If that's a comfort then realise that at the moment of your death, somewhere else on earth a new baby will be born - and imagine that's going to be you, reincarnated. In terms of any reasonable measurement, there is no way to distinguish reincarnation from the atheist 'utter extinction' belief. We are hard-wired to propagate our genes on to the next generation - I take that responsibility very seriously - my son (hopefully) lives on when I die - my genes make it on to the next generation - my mission here is complete. If you prefer a different ending than that - then there is a way to believe in immortality and still follow modern scientific understanding. If you give the Schrodingers cat thought experiment credence (and most of us scientists do) - then you can choose to believe the many-worlds interpretation of that experiment. It says that there are an infinity of universes and all possible combinations of events happen in at least one of them. A reasonable percentage of physicists believe that - but by no means all. When the cat is inside the black box, there are two universes - one in which the cat lives - another in which it dies (and a bunch more actually). Now, imagine you are the cat. When the experiment is over, "you" are going to be the cat in the universe in which it lives - because in the other universe, you aren't there anymore. The antropic principle means that "you" will always be in the universe where you survive any kind of catastrophy...of course the anthropic principle is another somewhat 'iffy' proposition - but a good percentage of hard-core scientists are happy with it. So - if both the many-worlds hypothesis and the antropic principle hold then we are all immortal - because there is always a possibility (at the quantum level) that will result in you surviving any possible accident or any possibly fatal health condition. Throughout your infinitely long life, you will miraculously (literally) survive absolutely anything life throws at you. Indeed, if you believe that, then you cannot die - it's completely impossible. I personally find this exceedingly alarming - and I really hope it's not true because the antropic principle only guarantees that you continue to experience life - it doesn't guarantee any kind of quality of life - this view is as close to a biblical hell as can be imagined - and the good and the evil both end up there without hope of redemption. Right now, not many scientists would go that far - but then we don't happen to inhabit any of the universes where one person has survived for 100,000 years through a sequence of almost-but-not-quite impossible events. SteveBaker 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always wondered what it is about this amalgamation of cells and other assorted things that causes what we call "consciousness" - and, like a bubble, where it goes when it "pops." In fact, this analogy makes a lot of sense to me - our physical bodies are like shells that house our minds; and when we die, our "bubble" is no longer indistinguishable from the rest of everything... Sounds kind of Jungian, doesn't it? *shrug* there are only two ways to know for sure... V-Man - ^T/_C 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How can one hope that there is not an eternal life to follow after? What would be the use of life? Just to meander hopelessly with no reason at all? I feel sorrow for you, 88.111.180.64...

That would be understandable if the afterlife is the exact same as this life. Things would get pretty miserable, with continued deterioration of health and emotion, etc. The reason many religions posit such optimism in their views of an afterlife is because they hope it will be different in some way; i.e., no sickness, pain, or separation from loved ones. V-Man - ^T/_C 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

One very popular way of dealing with one's eventual death is denial. You pretend to yourself that you aren't really going to die; you're just going to heaven. In the West at least, there are a lot of people available who will eagerly help you achieve that self-delusion. MrRedact 12:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager is an interesting take on questions raised here. Edison 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes that there is no cost associated with belief. If you make that assumption then he's right - a very low probability of a significant result still makes it worth acting on the basis that this unlikely thing is true. However, if there is even a small cost associated with belief - then the wager is not so cut-and-dried - you have a very small number multiplied by a very large number compared to a middle sized number. The second problem with the wager argument is that it assumes that you can simply choose to believe and have faith. Does this particular god get upset if you merely pretend to be pious and pretend to worship him/her/it whilst secretly not believing a word of it? It might be worse to have lived a lie for your entire life than to have honestly held disbelief. Finally, there are a very large number of religions you could choose from - Pascal's wager assumes that there is just one. Now you are in even more trouble. If you decide that on the balance of probability you should become a Muslim - and in fact the Invisible Pink Unicorn turns (MHHBB) turns out to be the ONE TRUE GOD - then you're in big trouble. The probability of picking the correct religion out of literally hundreds isn't good. IMHO, you are better of being honest and living a generally clean life and hope it gets you out of trouble in the event that there is some kind of supernatural being driving the universe! SteveBaker 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say to all editors who wrote the above answers that I read your posts and I clicked on most of the links. I´ll keep having troubles with death, a lot of them, but those were all nice answers. I would like to talk more about the subject with you, but I just don´t feel this is the right place. I support the creation of the Wikiforum so we can have threads like that. They just don´t fit here too well. Thank you all. A.Z. 06:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this is not the place. I was going to suggest that you check out the "Open 2 Question" forum here: [1] - there are smart people on several sides of the debate there. But it seems to be down right now. If you want the atheistic view (and hotter debate!) you could risk Richar Dawkin's forum site here: [[2]]. If you want the purely religious side of things - there are a bazillion places to go, just about every religious group on the planet has a forum of some kind. SteveBaker 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I´m gonna check those websites. I read something by Richard Dawkins once. I thought he based his entire atheism and stuff on a lame premise, the one that it actually makes a difference whether there is a God or not. He actually tried to explain the difference by saying "if there was a God, all the laws of physics could change suddenly. Of course it makes a difference whether there is a God!" He treats it as if it were the most obvious thing on Earth. I for one am far from being convinced of that. I have no idea of what God is and what does it mean to say that it exists or to say that it doesn´t. I can´t really see how any of my actions and my thoughts and the world and the Universe and time and space will change on my mind as a consequence of any of those two assertions ("there is a God", "there´s not a God), they´re just meaningless loaded terms that generally can mean to the person who says them: "I believe in the afterlife" or "I am against the Catholic Church" or something. But they´re not really talking about God. The other thing is that Science has nothing to do with religion and vice-versa. Religion should not use science to try to prove any point, it should admit it is based on faith, nor should Science try to find out whether there is a God or not. Atheists have faith that a God (whatever that is) doesn´t exist and they really should admit it is a faith and Science will never one day say "Ok, we checked the entire Universe now and we haven´t seen God anywhere." A.Z. 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins is principally an evolutionary biologist - and almost all of his books are on that subject. However, he does have a new book specifically about atheism - it's called 'The God Hypothesis' - his reasoning goes a lot deeper (and is much more clearly explained) than you suggest. I'm not sure to whom the book is addressed though - anyone with any religious belief at all will probably be so offended by his rhetoric that they'll be unable to finish reading the book - those who are already atheists have probably already understood his major discussion points and don't really need to read it. SteveBaker 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it is adressed to me. I mean, not specifically me, but people who are neither atheists nor religious. I would really like to find that article by Dawkins that I read once, so I could show you his reasoning. It really didn´t look that clear as you´re saying. I´m gonna read the book. A.Z. 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just started reading The God Delusion on Richard Dawkins website (the first chapter is there) and he is so far talking about Einstein and Stephen Hawking and the Catholic Church instead of talking about God. I would really like to assume good faith, but I can´t help thinking he is trying to make a point there saying Einstein was an atheist. Whether Einstein was an atheist or not doesn´t really matter to me, what matters to me is why does he think God doesn´t exist. A.Z. 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Some people might not believe in god because something bad has or had happened to them, causing them to think "If there was a god, he wouldn't let this happen to me". Think about it- what would life be like if nothing bad ever happened? How would we learn from our mistakes if there are none? How would we be able to know right from wrong if consequences weren't involved? If there is no bad, there is no good. It would all be the same. Life would be a dull experience, with nothing to learn from, nowhere to go, with no meaning. -Dixie48 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So... Are we going to learn everthing some day and then our experience will become dull? Or are we going to live forever persuing this never-reachable knowledge? A.Z. 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that yes, we will learn most everything in the end when we reach the afterlife, but I also believe that you don't change when you die. You keep your personality, your thoughts, feelings, and experiences that you gained when you were in this life. Just because you learn everything or most of everything in the end, doesn't mean that what you learned here becomes dull or unimportant. I believe that you have the choice to believe what you learn later, in the end, therefore still keeping what you experienced, all of what you did and thought, alive. It's sort of hard to describe it the way I would like to, but, of course, these are just my opinions. -Dixie48 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is this guy?

Doctor Congo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.188.209 (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

It's a hospital ship on the African river Congo, see Doctor Congo -- Meister 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "copy" in communication

Hi,

can you help me and answer the question:

what is "copy" when talking about communication???

Thank you in advance, Giedre —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.219.94.176 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

It means "yes, I have a copy (in my mind) of what you said." or simply "understood.", I believe it has evolved from "do you copy?" which is asking the same thing, ie "do you understand what i said?". Perhaps someone else can help with the etymology :) Capuchin 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a Hollywood-ization of the term. Copy means that you are about to read back what you were just told by a control tower, ground control, another aircraft, etc. Roger simply means that you understand. At least this is what I was always instructed and used/heard from other pilots on the radio in my years of flight training. Dismas|^(talk) 21:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You should just check the dictionary on this one (www.dictionary.com for example). Aside from what Capuchin has just said, Copy can also refer to a copy (noun), which is a body of text/prose, written(typed/written/etc) usually for the purpose of reading. So for example if you had to go to do a voice over at a recording studio for a short ad, they would hand you a COPY which will show you what to say. You may have heard of Copywriters. These are people that usually work in advertising agencies and write the text for various adverts. Rfwoolf 16:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery face in land

If one uses Google earth with these coordinates: 50̊ 0'38.20"N 110̊ 6'48.32"W , there is a human face in the land. Is this carved in the ground? If so when? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.231.132.60 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

And why is it wearing earbuds? Jfarber 01:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

~~That's most likely a small reservoir for cattle.~~—eric 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the feature on google maps, east of Medicine Hat, Alberta.—eric 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the scale of the face (200m high), it is most likely a natural landscape effect that happens to look like a face. - Akamad 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See Pareidolia. Dismas|^(talk) 21:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see erosion and fractals. V-Man - ^T/_C 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You should also note that this feature is a drainage, not a ridge. Turn you monitor upside down and it does not look nearly as prominent.—eric 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: do not turn your monitor upside down if it is heavier than a small human being. that is all. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's suggestive... 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything...--$UIT 02:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this link.—eric 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Cool! It's the face of Jesus! Or maybe it's the Virgin Mary, but I'm sure it's one of the two! It's too big to sell it on eBay, but we could all at least flock there and erect a shrine. ;) MrRedact 13:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an Olmec bust with a headdress, to me. Note the huge lips on both: [3], [4]. StuRat 07:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Martian "face"

Proof that Martians once landed in Alberta? SteveBaker 13:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That picture is like a Rorschach test. I can actually see a few other less prominent faces. A.Z. 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I can see the face of a baby - complete with arms and legs wrapped in a blanket - just to the North-East of the most obvious face. Pareidolia (particularly as regards faces) is a very powerful effect. NASA spent significant effort debunking the Face on Mars - and still I'd have to say that a majority of people believe it's there...heck an entire movie was made on the premise that the face was real. SteveBaker 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see your baby now, but at first it looked like the face of an old man to me. A.Z. 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the article in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badlands_Guardian_Geological_Feature.

[edit] No Fly Zones

Why are the Boundry waters of Northern Minnesota a No Fly Zone?

The Federal Aviation Administration has on online interactive special use airspace map.[5] Prohibited Areas P-204, P-205, and P-206 extend to an altitude of 4000' above the Boundary Waters wilderness area of the Superior National Forest. President Harry S. Truman established the Prohibited area by Executive Order 10092 on December 17, 1949.—eric 23:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably helps decrease any possible polution there, as motor boats are not allowed on many of those lakes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.135.99 (talk • contribs).

Technology and tourist dollars had made possible a significant challenge to the wilderness nature of the area unanticipated before the war. A number of flying services had been established for the purposes of flying fishermen to interior lakes and tourists to resorts located on private property which still remained within the roadless area. Air service constituted a threat to the wilderness, and was surely contrary to the spirit of a "roadless area."...Concern was expressed by the Forest Service, some local residents and state officials, and by conservation groups led by the Izaak Walton League. As a result, the secretary of agriculture proposed an executive order creating an airspace reservation over the roadless area. He submitted the proposal to the secretary of commerce who advised against the reservation...The Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, and the Quetico-Superior Committee were denied their right to vote and were not informed of the subcommittee's meeting. Preservation groups were similarly uninformed, though the Air Transport Association and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association did have representation at the meeting....President Harry S. Truman overruled his commerce secretary and issued the order on December 17, 1949. Its validity was subsequently challenged in federal court, but the judge noted that preservation of the area's wilderness nature was a well-established governmental purpose, and recognized the president's authority to issue the order. It was upheld on appeal.(Allin, Craig W. (1982) The Politics of Wilderness Preservation, p. 89)

—eric 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The deletion of List of fictional cities

Ever since I first looked on this website, I have always wanted to know about a list of fictional cities. It was a real list of fictional cities.

What happened to that list of fictional cities? Why have you all deleted it?

You can read the deletion discussion to find out why. There is still a list in Category:Fictional_towns_and_cities. You should ask questions about wikipedia editing at WP:Help desk-- Diletante 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Wikipedian's concern over the article about Ha*Ash

What are you concerned about in the article about Ha*Ash?

Taking a look at it, the first and biggest thing to be concerned about in that article is that it does not properly cite its sources. Someone apparently had an issue with notability, which would be solved if the sisters are, indeed, signed with Sony BMG. Once that is taken care of, however, the issue of copy-paste needs to be looked into, as someone is under the impression that the article was copied from one place and pasted onto Wikipedia. That's not entirely ethical in the encyclopedia world, and could result in legal troubles. Essentially what the article needs is to be properly cited and verified with regards to its notability and originality. V-Man - ^T/_C 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There are just too many red flags. It's borderline whether the band are notable, there are a bunch of copyvios, there is no referencing and a bunch of copyrighted images in a gallary (where they cannot be justified under fair use). If just one of those problems was there, we'd probably let it slide - but everything is wrong at once - so it's a sure fire vote delete. SteveBaker 01:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, people might confuse it with hashish. V-Man - ^T/_C 09:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Given their gold records, I'd call them notable, if the information could be verified. Unfortunately, a catalog search at sonymusic.com for "Ha*ash" returns no results, nor are they on the list of artists there, so I think it's a hoax. Neon Merlin 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribal peoples

I know that tribal peoples still exist in certain places, but are there any tribal peoples that don't know that civilized peoples exist? I mean, like how before Europeans went to certain places, the natives didn't know civilized peoples existed.

Define "civilized." ;-) V-Man - ^T/_C 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Civilized as in technologically advanced.

Well, by nature, technologically advanced peoples seem to be more inclined to interact; in my opinion, any uncivilized society's knowledge about other cultures would be mutual and reciprocal. However, I'm willing to bet there are technologically un-advanced tribes who are unaware of other cultures, but I highly doubt anyone else is much aware of them. V-Man - ^T/_C 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There probably are tribes that don't know about other cultures, but it's a safe bet that other cultures don't know about them either. I've never heard of a native culture whose existence has been discovered, but with whom no contact has been made by the outside world. JackofOz 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard about some small tribes that knew about other cultures, but refused any interaction with them. 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as in some of the inhabitants of the Amazon Rain Forest. Here's an account of a recent violent encounter: [6]. StuRat 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I cringe at your use of "civilized", but anyway this question is doomed from the start. If we know of their existence, then they should know of ours, right? (Unless we discover them with satellites and decide not to meet them…) − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the word is used in accordance with it's roots, when it meant "city-fied". However, the word has since come to mean something quite different, that's true. Using the modern meaning, one could even say that people who live in cities are uncivilized (pushing on the subways, etc.). StuRat 07:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are probably a lot of people that don't know other cultures exist, but these would probably come under 'civilized' in most definitions :] I'm sure there are still a few places, probably in the Amazon, where no Europeans, North Americans, &c have been, where there might be other people, but I suspect it is unlikely :) HS7 14:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read (I'm not sure where, I wish I could remember) about indigenous groups of people that have been pretty much left alone. It's not that we don't know about them, it would be hard not to at this point, it's that they don't know about us, except maybe as "some guy who wandered through a few years ago." They're treated much the same way as an endagered species. Black Carrot 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think most Americans are aware that any other civilisations exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.138.46.155 (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Keep racist comments to yourself please ;) --125.236.135.136 12:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)