Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 December 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< November 30 << Nov | December | Jan >> December 2 >
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 1

[edit] What can hospitals force you to stay for?

I was just wondering and I'm not sure where else to find it. If you are admitted to a hospital, what are they allowed to force you to stay, against your will, for?

75.182.93.102 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this a legal question, or a medical question, I wonder? The Ref Desks don't deal with either. What I can say is that the answer will likely depend upon exactly where the hospital is located. There is also likely to be a difference between being isolated from others (as in being a possible, probable or confirmed public-health risk) and being required to accept treatment. You would need to consult a lawyer for advice on what you can be forced to accept and a doctor for advice on what the consequences are of accepting or not accepting treatment. Bielle 04:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't misinterpret questions as asking for medical or legal advice when they are simply questions about medical and legal topics. It is not the same thing and it is very irritating to have the peanut gallery pop up and claim that it is off limits. We don't give advice—we can't tell you how to cure your cold or get out of jail—but we can answer all sorts of non-advisory questions—how are viruses destroyed by the immune system? how does exoneration work?—about medical and legal topics and do all the time. --24.147.86.187 18:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No hospital can force you to stay or to accept treatment. Only the legal system can do that. --WebHamster 04:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that the legal system could require the hospital to force you to stay. --Anon, 06:04 UTC, Dec. 1.
No. The legal system would force you to stay in (or be treated by the) hospital. The hospital would have nothing to do with the 'forcing'. They would just be carrying out the legal judgement. --WebHamster 11:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In many countries you can be Involuntarily committed for mental health reasons, often of you are a imminent danger to yourself or others. As Bielle says, I expect there are also certain unusual situations, such as if you are a carrier of a highly infectious airborne pathogen, that a doctor might force you to stay against your will until the public health risk can be managed. However, the specific legalities of that would depend on your country of origin and, again as Bielle said, there is a difference between keeping you isolated against your will and treating you against your will. Rockpocket 07:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See 2007 tuberculosis scare: "first individual subjected to a CDC isolation order since 1963." --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See also involuntary treatment. --24.147.86.187 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Being dead?--TreeSmiler 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the sound of one hand stabbing?

Ignoring any blood-curdling screams, what does someone getting stabbed sound like? --67.185.172.158 04:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that it would sound similar to a slab of the meat of some mammal being stabbed. This in turn would depend a lot on whether the knife hit bone. -- Hoary 04:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Try for yourself. Get a fresh (dead) chicken or turkey. Then jam a knife into its ribs. It'll sound pretty much the same. --WebHamster 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You may hear this sound in the Extended Release version (on DVD - this wasn't done in the theatrical release) of the film The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film), which was the third of the Lord of the Rings series directed by Peter Jackson. The Extended Release DVD came out in December 2004, and included some extra scenes that were not shown in the theatres. One of these scenes is that of Saruman the wizard (played by Christoper Lee) being stabbed in the back by Gríma Wormtongue (played by Brad Dourif) with a knife. On this DVD are a number of commentaries, including that of Peter Jackson. In this scene, Jackson describes how they got the sound of the knife being stuck into Saruman. He said that Christopher Lee had had some previous experience serving in the British RAF in World War II as a Special Operations Executive. Because of this, Lee knew from first-hand experience what the sound of a knife being thrust into a human body would sound like. As part of his highly acclaimed dedication to the acting profession, Lee took it upon himself to work with the sound effects people for the film in coming up with a sound that he felt most closely resembled that of a knife stab with one hand. So, if you wish to hear what this sounds like, get the Extended Release DVD of this movie, go to this scene, and there you have it! ----Saukkomies 08:41, 2 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Validity of statement

Is the following statment by Patrick Eberhart valid? "Although the body may be free and the mind is inside the body this does not mean that the mind is free or that the body is free inside the mind."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.1.143 (talk • contribs)

Sounds nonsensical to me, but what he means very much depends on his definitions. What does he mean by mind? To say the mind is in the body presupposes it is a physical object? What does he mean by free? Free (to, from, of) what?--Shantavira|feed me 08:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As for the mind being inside the body, I believe he may have been referring to sensory input rather than the mind itself. Where the body goes, the mind seems to follow. Even if the body is free, that certainly does not mean the mind is free. Invisible chains can straightjacket a mind (I love mixed metaphors), whether they are self-imposed, the result of a mental health condition or the result of indoctrination. Also, the body may not have external restrictions (i.e. not in prison) but still may not be capable of free movement, due to problems in the brain. Is the Patrick Eberhart who said this the basketball coach? Google didn't return any hits for a Patrick Eberhart known for philosphy or studies of the mind. 152.16.59.190 09:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No, he is a fictional character in an unpublished novel, although it sounds like something a coach/counselor might say, as in... "...and I leave you with this thought..." The name was taken from a piece of mail addressed to a previous tenant in a condo in Georgetown. Background of character is family with an American political/military/ministry history going back many generations which left many unsolved problems for the next generation(s) to solve as condition for raising them. Eberhart finds solutions for some and as his reward is expected then to find solutions for all. The family history also includes problems with alcoholism and its opposite from which he somehow manages to escape in later life after succumbing in early life, along with many other and varied problems. 71.100.1.143 16:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the mind is not subject to the same physical restrictions as the body. Ever had a dream where you managed to do something you could not do in the real world, e.g. flying, changing shape etc? --WebHamster 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, he says "'Although A may be true and B is true, this does not mean C or D". So he doesn't say whether C and D are true or not - only that the truth of them does not depend on the truth of A or B. So to paraphrase: "Just because your body is free - that doesn't necessarily mean that your mind is also free or that you feel that your body is free".
I think you could envisage a situation where a political prisoner is freed from jail - but told that his family will be brutally murdered if he continues to oppose whatever government is in power. His body is free, he can go wherever he wants - his mind is inside his body (well, duh!) - but his mind is not free...and within his mind, he does not feel as if his body is free because he may not use it to (for example) write the truth about the goverment he so hates.
So whilst that's an unnecessarily tortuous and hard to parse statement that's clearly been written to try to make the author seem clever rather than to convey useful information - yes, I think it's true. SteveBaker 15:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The assumption is that mind is a subset of brain, which is contained within the body. It is possible (perhaps) to adopt a position where the mind is a non-localised phenomenon, and is located on another plane of existence. That's not really how *I* see it, but it's a possible stance to take. This would ruin the logic of the conclusion. Steewi 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not possible. Removing small parts of the brain have profound (and fairly predictable) effects on the mind. In Alzheimers', the decline of the mind parallels very closely the decline of the physical material comprising the brain. If the brain sleeps, the mind shuts down. If you have a concussion and are 'out' for a while, both mind and brain are 'out of it' in perfect synchrony. We can put someone into a brain scanner and spot parts of the brain that light up when the mind does certain specific things. With all that modern humans know it's quite unreasonable to take the view that they are somehow separate. SteveBaker 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown song in Youtube video

I am unable to identify the song played in the background of this video at an airshow. I intend to insert the answer into the comment box. My searches on Google have been unsuccessful. Please help. --Blue387 07:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That'd be the King... Elvis the song is Burning Love-Dureo 12:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like a cover of the song to me (more countrified), not the original, but yeah, Burning Love, classic song. --24.147.86.187 21:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making a Honorary-Page for a deceased father

To Whom It May Concern,

As a consistent Wikipedia user, I thought it would be an amazing idea if I could setup a wiki-page in memory of my recently-deceased father.

Is this possible? Thank you.

Best,

Ricardo Calzada

I'm sorry for your loss, but this violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, unless your father was notable. Clarityfiend 09:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, this comes up a lot - especially on the 'Articles for Deletion' and 'Articles for Creation' pages where well-meaning Wikipedians frequently have to argue with grieving relatives about the relative merit of the lives of the recently deceased...this is never good for either side. Creating an article about your father and then having to fight to avoid it being deleted (and probably losing) is something you don't need right now. I strongly advise you to give it a year so that you have some better perspective on the matter - there is no urgency to create a fitting memorial. Worse still, grief does not help you powers of reasoning. When it is time to reconsider this. please check Wikipedia:Notability (people) which sets out the rules for articles about people. You will need to honestly evaluate whether your father meets those criteria. But even if he does, you are hardly an unbiassed observer. In all likelyhood, you would have a conflict of interest and much of what you might have to say would be original research - neither of which are welcome here. So even if he passes the notability test, someone else ought to write the article. I feel for you - when my father died suddenly, I was devastated. On the day I heard the news, I needed get a new pair of shoes before getting on a plane and flying halfway around the planet to be there for my mother. I drove about 2 miles towards the shoe store - and had to pull over and phone my wife to come and get me because I was too overcome to drive any further. That's not the time to be writing a dispassionate, carefully sourced article on Wikipedia. If you must do something - try http://www.last-memories.com/ SteveBaker 17:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Carlos, thank you for asking instead of just trying to create the page. I am sorry for your loss, but I am glad that you asked here instead of attempting to add a page that would be deleted. I also considered adding page when my father died, but I (fortunately) was already familiar with Wikipedia policy. At this point in the Wikipedia lifecycle, we cannot accept articles about "non-notable" people, where "non-notable" has a very rigid and very specific definition. Since Wikipedia cannot asses notability by itself, we are forced to define "notability" by reference to external sources. Fortunately, as SteveBaker noted above, there are other websites where you can memorialize your father. Please also keep a local copy of your memorial. I feel that Wikipedia will eventually relax the notability rule. We desperately need the rule now, because we consider ourselves to be a general-purpose encyclopedia like Britannia or MSN. At some time in the future, we will shift to being the font of all knowledge. We are not there yet, so please save the memorial until we get there. -Arch dude 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I entirely agree with you. I agree that as we run out of new things to write about (and with 2.1 million articles, that's beginning to become noticable), the Wikipedia notability standards may well gradually relax in order to allow writing about less notable topics. But I very much doubt that the verifiability/referencing standards will slip. Indeed as the notability of our subjects subjects fell, it would become increasingly difficult to find enough people who happen to know about the subject in order to keep the article truthful and accurate. Hence verifiability becomes even more important than it is now. If verifiability were taken seriously (and gradually, it is), notability rules probably wouldn't be needed at all because things, events or people who are not notable don't get mentioned in books, magazines and newspapers - and therefore anything one might say about them would not be verifiable.
Articles about very obscure topics don't consume too much extra disk space - you could write 1000 words on every man, woman and child who had ever lived on the planet - and fit it into a few terabytes of disk space - which in ten years time will cost perhaps $1000. So there is no technological reason why we couldn't have an article about literally everything in existance. But the problem is, how could you possibly have any idea whether most of them were correct or not? If would be useless to have all of those articles if even a small proportion of them were lies, exaggerations and the result of people's poor memories. In such an environment, we could have to clamp down on under-referenced articles - and in such an environment, it would still be difficult to write a biography of a 'normal' person since so little will have been published about them during their lives. Thinking about my own father, it pains me to admit that I'm fairly sure he's never been mentioned in any books - and such fragments of his life that could be determined from magazines and newspapers would be fragmentary in the extreme and almost impossible to find. In terms of verifiability, it would actually be rather difficult to confirm that he ever lived at all. So I don't think that falling notability standards would help here - unless our OP's father was extensively written about. SteveBaker 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
To the OP: As an alternative solution, might I suggest creating it as a subpage of your user page? This breaches no policy or guideline, is exempt from NPOV, referencing, and furthermore it is customary that user subpages are not open for editing by other editors unless specifically invited to do so. Manning 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a wildly incorrect statement. Wikipedia is not some kind of free webhosting service. I'm horrified that you'd treat it that way. Let me quote some of the policies and guidelines that you think you know:
Wikipedia:User page says: "In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site". WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not your web host" and "Personal essays...are not allowed". Most significantly: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives."...since memorials are "inappropriate for Wikipedia" - they are not suitable for user pages either.
Yet more specifically: Wikipedia:Subpages has some words to say about allowed and disallowed use of subpages. The only criteria under which a memorial might concievably be allowed would be under the "As an extension to your user page" clause - which means that the Wikipedia:User page guidelines apply. Those guidelines also say: "Wikipedia is not a free host - using your user page (or subpages) for content unrelated to writing an encyclopedia is frowned upon, and content can and will be deleted if violations are egregious.". Specifically "In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site.".
Also, subpages are explicitly NOT exempt from NPOV: "Disallowed Uses....* Writing a content fork to avoid NPOV.' - there are also some very important rules about how subpages are linked and categorised.
SteveBaker 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm genuinely sorry you find the notion so objectionable. I've read the same guidelines many times and I see it as being acceptable enough in the circumstances.
'Excessive personal information (more than a couple of pages) unrelated to Wikipedia (...is frowned upon/discouraged)'
'The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants.'
Wanting to deny a regular contributor a single harmless subpage to do with his father (due to a severely rigid interpretation of a guideline) could be seen as being somewhat "mean-spirited". It's a single page (so hardly "excessive"), it's not egregious and it is still within the "[no] more than a couple of pages" guideline. The NPOV subpage guidelines you cited are really more to do with people writing content-forking alternative versions of articles within the main namespace, which isn't really relevant here. No-one expects personal information in the user namespace to be NPOV as such, just civil and in good faith (non-commercial, etc). Manning (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Manning, if one person was allowed to have a page for a non-notable person, it would create a precedent and soon there would be thousands of pages like it(which surely is excessive). I think the thing to remember is that this is not personal. 212.240.35.42 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights of Opportunity

I saw about 2 episodes on star world, today. Wikipedia and Google does not give results. It's about a bunch of people trying to rob some rock star. Is it new?Usually these serials are first aired in us, uk etc before they come here. Yet Googling the phrase doesn't help. What is it? 59.93.18.147 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I recall it being called "Knights of Prosperity" here, and it ran about a year ago as I recall. — Lomn 17:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
OOPS! that's what it was... Thanks 59.93.41.16 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Living animals as products?

Is there any case where living animals, not intended as food, are branded as commercial products? JIP | Talk 11:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mink?--88.111.25.42 12:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by branding in this context, but pets, livestock and animals used in fur clothing are certainly treated as products. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
What I mean by branding is something like "our new RS2000 high-end line of dachshunds will not let you down!". Is there such a thing? JIP | Talk 13:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Animals used to make "biofuel" could be called commercial products, I guess. Keria 13:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mice and several other lifeforms are patented because of their genetic makeup and sold as research tools. All pets and breeding livestock would also fit what you are asking. Animals are marketed as guard animals, therapy animals, goose chasing dogs, etc. Is this what you mean?Bob98133 14:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There are things like insects and small, unicellular animals that are sold as live products for things like "organic" pest control. I would imagine that at least some of those are branded. This comes close to what you are asking for. The "Garden Variety Pack" consists of 6,000 assorted insects. They havn't quite gone so far as to call them something other than what they are - but I think this broadly meets what you have in mind. Certainly it's a common practice with plants (eg StarLink corn) so it wouldn't surprise me to find bioengineered predators having trademarked names of the kind you are concerned about. SteveBaker 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There was a company that sold custom-coloured cats to high-end clients. Feline coloration is very well understood and apparently one company thought it would be a profitable idea to allow people to choose exactly which colour kitten they'd get. I can't seem to find them online, so it may have gone bust. At the time I heard about it, there was hypocritical sniveling from some cat breeders that it was somehow unnatural. Matt Deres 17:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned white mice and other experimental organisms are sold for research and are marketed for their specific genetic characteristics. The history of using white mice as experimental organisms is quite interesting; they were in fact originally marked under a specific brand name (because they were bred to be specifically useful as model organisms) but for the life of me I can't remember the name of the brand... --24.147.86.187 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep - this is much closer to what the OP is looking for: Ace Animals sell Sprague Dawley(tm) rats - varying in price between $10 and $90 depending on your needs. Also the catchily named "Balb/c" and "C57BL/6" mice $13 to $100 for the discerning buyer. SteveBaker 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See C57BL/6 and BALB/c for more info on those. Also GloFish is an example of an animal as a product. Rockpocket 21:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sea Monkeys probably also fall into this catagory. "Sea Monkey" is a brand name for a type of Brine Shrimp. --APL 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Police Dogs are living animals that are marketed under the same tagline as the dachshunds above, "We offer top working dogs from Europe and the USA." "All canines are guaranteed for workability, and will perform to buyer's satisfaction upon delivery." German Shephards and Belgian Malinois are fairly common around here for bite dogs, and our drug sniffer is a Yellow Lab. Dureo 03:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypoallergenic cats. --mglg(talk) 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talking to people

I noticed when I talk to people and dont give them a choice, they are more likely to go along with what I want and I was wondering it there were any studies done and any statistics for this, I looked but could not find anything. Heres an example of what I mean:

Method 1: Me: I'll call you later Method 2: Me: Can I call you later?

If I dont give them a choice like method one, I'll get what I want more often, like in this example, I will be able to get off the phone.

Thanks

Well that would be being assertive. You see your first is a command, the second a request. Anyway whilst not quite the same there is a wonderful Tedtalk by Daniel Gilbert (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/97) which discusses happiness and how choice can sometimes make it harder to be happy than no choice. Infact if you've not seen/heard of tedtalks I recommend them. Some of the videos are brilliant. Malcolm Gladwell is superb, as is Helen Fisher discussing the 'biology of love'. ny156uk 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The power of words is very effective and the phrasing of language can affect peoples behaviour. Loftus and Palmer conducted a study which outlines this well, participants watched a video of a traffic accident and were then asked to estimate the speed of a car. Some participants were asked 'how fast was the car travelling when it smashed into the other one?' others were asked 'how fast was the car travelling when it contacted into the other one?' The mean speed estimate for 'smashed' was 40.8 mph, and for 'contacted' was 31.8mph. Despite being shown the same video the simple change in verb affected the participants response, much like the response of the person posed with 'I'll call you later' or 'Can I call you later?'. Sorry i couldnt source this information, i took it from my college notes, but i hope you find this of interest. RobertsZ 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
also see phsycotic behaviour
See Dale Carnegie - he wrote the the very famous "How to win friends and influence people" which was as far as I know (in other words, I haven't verified this) the first really successful "pop psychology" bookManning 09:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
See also Neurolinguistic programming. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Washington, DC

1) Washington, DC and the District of Columbia are the same thing, aren't they?
2) Can Washington, DC ever be written as just Washington? Why is it so important to have the "DC" bit at the end? Is it simply because of the American practise of writing cities like Dallas, TX when neccessary (Australia's capital is in its own territory [rather than being a state], but I've never seen it written out as Canberra, ACT [except as an address])? Could it be to distinguish it from Washington state?
3) If a resident of Washington, DC has to fill out a form and it asks for their state, what do they write? District of Columbia? And if it on an online form and the user has to pick out their state from a drop-down list, would the District of Columbia generally be listed (In Australia instead of "State:" it would generally say "State/Territory:" to accommodate the fact that Australia has 6 states and 2 territories, and they would all be listed)?
4) Have you noticed that every single question I've written ends in a question mark? But you do know it wasn't intentional, right?

  1. Washington, DC and the District of Columbia are the same thing, aren't they? -- Technically, no - in practice, yes. The weird thing about the District of Columbia is that it's not inside any US state. In effect, it is it's own state and it's governed by the Federal government. This is so that no state can apply undue pressure on the Federal government by passing laws that would affect them. Washington DC is a city - that just happens to be the only thing inside the District of Columbia. So Washington DC is a city, District of Columbia is a kind of mini-state that happens to have the exact same borders as the city.
  2. Can Washington, DC ever be written as just Washington? -- Sure - but bear in mind that there is also a state called Washington right up at the top-left of the USA, also 31 counties, 35 other cities, two islands, one mountain and hundreds and hundreds of small townships all called "Washington" - and that's in the USA alone - there are more Washingtons elsewhere in the world. Sticking 'DC' on the end makes it clear which one you are talking about. It's the same with Dallas - saying "Dallas, Texas" makes it clear that you aren't talking about any of the other 11 places called "Dallas" in the USA.
  3. If a resident of Washington, DC has to fill out a form and it asks for their state, what do they write? District of Columbia? - Yes.
    And if it on an online form and the user has to pick out their state from a drop-down list, would the District of Columbia generally be listed -- Yes.
  4. Have you noticed that every single question I've written ends in a question mark? -- I hadn't noticed that none of them weren't. Is that the same thing?
    But you do know it wasn't intentional, right? -- No - I am not telepathic.
SteveBaker 14:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I would add that it is common practice not to include the name of the state with prominent cities, as it is with world cities and their countries. We don't write "London, UK" every time just because there's one in Canada, but we do if there's a chance of confusion. So, you'd be more likely to see "Philadelphia" just so, even though there are others in the US. Washington, DC, is a little different. In an international setting, you would write "Paris, Washington, and Moscow", never "Paris, Washington, DC, and Moscow". But you would write "Harry is moving to Washington, DC" (or even "DC") if your audience had no idea about the likelihood of his moving anyplace in particular, because of Washington State. --Milkbreath 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure - it's got to depend on the context you are talking. I live 15 miles from Dallas, TX - but I'd never tell my wife "I'm just heading into Dallas, Texas" - because it's really obvious which Dallas I'm talking about. If I'm telling someone in another state (Oregon, for example) that I live near Dallas, I need to qualify that with "Texas" or they may mistake where I mean. There is also a matter of notoriety. There is a city in Texas called "Paris" - but if I say I'm planning to visit Paris for the weekend - some people might suspect I mean Paris, France - so I might need to disambiguate by saying "Paris, Texas". With Washington, it's much worse - the name is ridiculously common (as my previous response indicated) - and even if you are talking to someone in Washington DC, you could EASILY be talking about Washington state. However, in the previous example, "Paris, Washington, Moscow" - it would be nonsensical to have Washington state included in a list of major cities. "Paris, Dallas, Moscow" wouldn't be confusing either - but "Paris, Texas, Los Angeles, Oregon, London, Washington, Moscow" would be utterly ambiguous. So, we just have to use common sense and tag on "DC" or "Texas" where necessary. SteveBaker 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of turning this into a conversation, I don't think you're giving Big D enough credit. I'm in New Jersey, and if somebody says they're going to Dallas next week, no "Texas" is necessary at all, in fact, it would insult our intelligence a tad. Athens, Georgia, however, needs the help, unless you live near it, but not Atlanta. It is a judgement call, and it will vary from place to place. Common sense, as you say. --Milkbreath 18:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Another example where common sense must be applied is "New York" -- also used for both a city and a state, but unlike with Washington, the city is in the state. In a list of states or similar context, "New York" means the state. In a list of cities or similar context, "New York" means the city. If you have to distinguish, you say "State of New York" or "City of New York", or use the informal short forms "New York State" or "New York City", or for the city you use "New York, New York" or "New York, NY" for the city. We see "New York City" a lot on Wikipedia where "New York" would be more natural. This is for two reasons, I think: (1) Wikipedia's article on the city is titled New York City and people slip into thinking that the article title must be the best form to use, and (2) some people may believe that "New York City" is the official name of the place, as with Oklahoma City and Kansas City where the word City actually is part of the city name and is always used.
--Anonymous, 23:00 UCT, December 1, 2007.
I've noticed that (at least some) people from "Austin Texas" never call it plain "Austin", even after the context has been well established. —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I heard once that when they were picking a name for Washington (the state, of course; by default "Washington" means the state), one of the names being considered was "Columbia". But they rejected that one because they thought it might be confused with the District of Columbia. No idea whether there's any truth to the story. --Trovatore 17:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Doh! SteveBaker 17:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that Americans, especially those who live in the Washington metro area, will often refer to the city simply as "DC." -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, although the City of Washington is now coterminous with DC, this was not always true. There was a separate city of Georgetown, D.C., until 1871; and until 1854 the District was a complete square, not truncated at the Potomac, and thus included the city of Alexandria, which is now in Virginia. See Retrocession (District of Columbia). --Anon, 10:53 UTC, Dec. 2.

And the citizens of DC still can't vote in national elections, have no say in government, yet have the same taxation obligations as other US citizens. I can just imagine if residents of all Sate Capitals were told they could not vote anymore! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.148.88.37 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Boo hoo, no one's forced to live there. —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The page Washington Territory mentions the early alternate name "Columbia". I've heard the idea that there was concern over confusing Columbia with "District of Columbia", but I've also heard that it was argued that no state was named for a president and one ought to be -- and if you're going to name a state after a president the first choice is obvious. I'm not sure, but I suspect the story about confusing the names may not be about the "District of Columbia" so much as the Columbia District, an early name of British Columbia.
I should have checked before posting this -- my suspicion was wrong. The book Names on the Land contains excerpts from Congressional debate over the name. Originally submitted as "Territory of Columbia", Richard H. Stanton gained the House floor and said: I desire to move to amend the bill by striking out the word "Columbia" and inserting "Washington" in lieu thereof. We have already a Territory of Columbia. This District is called Columbia; but we never have yet dignified a Territory with the name of Washington. There was no objection and Stanton continued, I have nothing more to say, except that I desire to see, if I should live so long, aat some future day, a sovereign State bearing the name of the Father of his country. Then, as Names on the Land puts it, "a quick wave of hero-worship swept the House." Another member went on to point out the confusion that might arise from having another Columbia, "forgetting," the book puts it, "the confusion to arise from another Washington." Two days later there was an attempt to change the name in the bill back to Columbia, with another Congressman pointing out the vast number of places already named Washington. This attempt gained a little support, but not enough, and the bill was passed with the name "Washington". Just thought I should amend my earlier statement with this tidbit of toponymy. Pfly 23:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You used "toponymy" in an actual sentence - that was plenty or recompense for any earlier confusion! SteveBaker 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In any case, on the OP's question of the city of Washington, I often hear it named without the DC when the context is clear -- most especially in the news. Whenever there is national news being reported, the reporter or network almost always signs of with a comment such as "This has been a report by such-and-such news, Washington." Pfly 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the other differences between New York City/State and Washington/DC is that Washington is the "capital" (for want of a better term) of DC, but NY City is not the capital of NY State (Albany is). The other point to note is that - and please correct me if I've got this wrong - the legal capital of the USA is not Washington but the entire District of Columbia. They're coterminous now, but they weren't back then. -- JackofOz 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You are correct! 4 USC 71 says: "All that part of the territory of the United States included within the present limits of the District of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United States." That means that even if the government of DC were to split it into multiple cities, the capital would still be the entirety of the district. -- Mwalcoff 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If you think this is confusing, the country of Mexico has a capital city named Mexico and a state named Mexico, and Mexico City is not in Mexico State. -- Mwalcoff 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Mexicans, that's just dumb. "Where are you going?" - "I'm going to Mexico". 'But you're already in Mexico" - "No, the other Mexico". "You mean the capital?" - "No". -- JackofOz (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to talk about Mexico City, you actually say "Mexico City" (or Ciudad de Mexico if you happen to be speaking Spanish, for some reason). I don't imagine that people will say they're going to Mexico State, but it is called 'Estado de Mexico' in Spanish, and apparently frequently shortened to 'Edomex'. Confusion erased, even if the confusion was made my a bizarre toponymic logic gap. Steewi (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ciudad de Mexico is suffixed with DF (federal district) and the city is sometimes referred to simply as "DF", just as Washington is colloquially called "DC". BrainyBabe (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I would guess that Mexico City was in Mexico State until the DF was carved out of the latter. —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes what one says in casual conversation depends upon the local geography. I live in northern Pennsylvania. If I tell someone I am going to Washington, most people assume that I mean the nation's capital. If I say that I am going to Dallas or Moscow, however, it's more likely that I am headed to the small town that is within an hour's driving distance away ... unless I say that I am flying to Dallas — that would be the giveaway. — Michael J 18:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • To further enforce Michael's point, people in Northern PA may assume that "Washington" means the capital, but people in Southwestern PA may assume that "Washington" means Washington, Pennsylvania! --M@rēino 15:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pain

I know that the description I give of a pain to my wife is different, (because I want sympathy), to that I give the doctor, (probably because I am afraid of his diagnosis), but just how do you define the quality of a pain?--88.111.25.42 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See the article pain scale. --Milkbreath 16:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Type, such as ache, sharp pain, diffuse pain, shooting pain. Severity such as mild (eg headache), moderate (eg muscle tear/strain), severe (eg broken limb), excruciating (eg renal colic, kidney stone). For people like me who have problems explaining subjective terms it can be helpful to give it a number, eg 1 lowest pain you've ever felt to 10 the most pain you've ever felt (along with a description of what caused that 10 pain).--WebHamster 16:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
But please see this. -Arch dude 22:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is funny when a nures says "How bad is the pain on a scale where 10 represents the worst pain you can imagine?" I always answer that if it were the worst pain I could imagine, I would be writhing on the floor and screaming at the top of my lungs. Edison 03:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Such as when having to listen to a Mariah Carey CD? :P --WebHamster 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought that's how it's produced! :p --antilivedT | C | G 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I seriously screamed 11 to a nurse (gall stones)..hotclaws 03:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
One person of my acquaintance said that gallstones (or whatever it was that led to her cholecystectomy) was as bad as childbirth. —Tamfang (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is this?

bhy stand for? union bridge? al's big al's?--Tyne001 18:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This site (http://www.acronymfinder.com/) has lists of acronyms and meanings, though BHY only has 2 Beihai in China's airport code and Bulk Hydrogen. As always acronyms are context-specific and so it will depend heavily on where it was seen/in what context.ny156uk 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
BlackRock High Yield Trust uses the symbol BHY on the New York stock exchange. It's also the international airline code for Bosphorus European Airways (and in the past for Birgenair who went bust after a major air crash), the IATA airport code for RAF Honiley in England and the ICAO code for Beihai Airport in Beihai, Guangxi, China. It's the ISO standard code for the 'Bhele' language. It's the code for the Bhayavadar railway station in India. I'm sure there are MANY more. In what context did you hear this acronym? SteveBaker 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euro 2008 Final Team Selections

Does anybody know when the final team selections are made for Euro 2008? Thanks! Five of Eleven 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the UEFA site, [1] have a look for yourself. Richard Avery 22:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting existing baseboard

I want to install a bookcase flush against a wall not only so that it looks good but also so that I can anchor it for safety. Unfortunately, the baseboard and quarter round shoe are pushing it out a good inch. I know that professional installers have some way to cut existing baseboard without removing it, but I've never observed how they do it. I can't quite see how to saw through it without making a mess of the drywall. Does anyone have any suggestions? Does it involve chisels? Bovlb 21:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just take it off and cut it. It's easier than the alternative. Start by using a very sharp knife to cut any paint or other connection between the top of the baseboard and the paint on the wallboard, or you will end up repainting. OK, if you insist on doing it the "easy" way, you can use a Dremel tool. Carefully. Use a cutting disk for most of the cut, and use a sharp knife to finish. If you have never used a Dremel for this purpose before, practice on some scrap first. -Arch dude 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Or if it's only the side verticals of the bookcase that hit the baseboard, you might choose to leave the baseboard alone and cut the necessary amount off the back bottom corners of the bookcase. If you're going to anchor it to the wall anyway, the loss of a bit of support there won't matter. Of course you might prefer the appearance with the baseboard cut, even if the bookcase design allows for my alternative. --Anon, 23:08 UTC, December 1.
Interesting idea, but the back of the bookcase is solid. In any case, the bookcase is considerably older than my house, so I would rather not cut it. Bovlb 23:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Score your two lines on the baseboard. Cut through any paint or the like at the top and bottom with a razor knife. Run two lines of closely spaced quarter-inch-or-so drill holes along the inside of the scored lines just about touching the lines, first marking the depth you want to drill to by wrapping a piece of masking tape around the bit to make a flag. Don't get greedy and drill too close together, or the bit will deflect into the neighboring hole. Carefully connect the holes and then dress the edges with a sharp wood chisel wide enough to ride on the work and make a nice edge. Wear knee pads. --Milkbreath 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Use eye protection, hearing protection, etc etc. Quarter round can be sawed or cut with a sharp wood chisel. Baseboard can be sawed (or sawn if you prefer). The cut can be finished with a chisel. Not the quickest or easiest job. A saber saw can be fitted with a flush cutting blade which projects beyond the fromt of the saw. This could speed up the process, but it is not that easy to control. I might start the cut with a backsaw held vertically, to create a starting kerf exactly where the cut is to be, then saw the rest of the way through the baseboard with a saber saw and a flush-cutting blade, which projects in fromt of the saber saw. The blade would be moving vertically, not horizontally, to avoid sawing through the wall behind the baseboard. The chisel or handsaw might be used near to floor to finish the cut. How long will you be living there and wanting the bookcase to be there? If you move in 5 years, it might be handy to have saved the cut-out baseboard for reinstallation. Fill in the gap with wood dough or plastic wood and apply a new quarter round. Edison 03:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This may not be Home Beautiful, but a subtle solution if you don't want to cut the case or the baseboard. I've found cutting a couple of very neat longish wedges out of the same material, painting or staining them the same color and pushing them under the side panels at floor level works well. Julia Rossi 22:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Another approach: cut the quarter round (eaasily replaced) to get the case against the baseboard. You could install narrow vertical pieces of wood stained stained to match the bookcase to fill the gap between it and the wall. Edison 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I have actually done this at least four times in the last thirty years. Trust me, it's easier to remove the baseboard, cut it, and replace it. If you insist on an "easier" alternative, remember that it is easy to repair wallboard or plaster, so any technique involving a saw or chisel that may damage the wallboard may still be acceptable. For example, you can use a sabre saw to cut from the top down and then use spackle to repair the wall board. Your repair will be hidden by the bookcase until you need to remove it, but fixng the wallboard at that time is easier than fixing the baseboard. A new baseboard, quarter-round, and stain or paint is nto very expensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arch dude (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we did it in the end using chisels and a Japanese saw. It looks good, but we did end up having to reattach the baseboard on one side. Thanks for all the tips. Bovlb 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates and chemistry

What is a pirates favorite element? 72.205.55.204 23:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrrr-gon? Bovlb 23:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yo-Ho? (ok, not a single element, and it wouldn't work at all verbally, but give me some points for tryin' here.)--24.147.86.187 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Au or Goooooooooold?? Dureo 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that's Goldmember. Pacific Coast Highway {ho ho ho • under the tree} 03:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I like GOOOLD! Dureo 12:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Two Hydrogen one Oxygen or Dihydrogen monoxide? Ruthenium (Ru) or Rhodium (Rh)? Keria 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

C'mon guys, this is an easy one. A pirate's favourite element is the sea! BrainyBabe (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmentalisim VS a "Mega Disaster"

IF a asteroid hits this planet, this planet is hit by a "Mega disaster", how will PETA, other groups of this nature survive ? After all there is a asteroid comming this way, and it'll hit this planet. Humanity will be concerned with survival, not preserving the environment, animals, except for food. After all, MREs don't last that long. 65.163.112.205 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I imagine if there was a disaster big enough that we had to all huddle in underground arcologies, there would be a lot of organisations that would fail, or at least fade into the background of society. You might as well ask what would happen to Major League Baseball. Still, It's easy to imagine that PETA would try to prevent unneccessary cruelty to animals during the mad dash for shelter and lobby against livestock being used for food in the newly designed arcologies. (An almost exclusivly vegan lifestile would be easier to maintain in such a situation, anyway.) Other environmental groups might band together to preserve DNA samples, or perhaps live specimens of plants and animals from around the world. A lot depends on how bad the disaster would be and how much warning we had before doomsday, but some of this is already being put into action. See Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault. If we knew we were about to be creamed by an asteroid, we'd probably see other similar projects being started to provide for the re-building of society. --APL 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
With a bit of luck those groups would suddenly disappear. I'm pretty sure a major cause of their existence is a secondary effect of the general well-being the citizens of rich countries have. --Taraborn 23:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
PETA is not an environmentalist group but rather an animal rights one. It seems odd to group them together. Pfly 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)