From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< December 24	<< Nov | December | Jan >>	December 26 >

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 1 December 25 1.1 Adolf Hitler 1.2 Doctors and accountants 1.3 help me find this cable? 1.4 social security number 1.5 Moccha salt 1.6 Matrixism

[edit] December 25

[edit] Adolf Hitler

Can anyone direct me to an Internet page that shows that A. Hitler was the most evil human being that ever lived? Also, can anyone define the word evil--TreeSmiler (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikitionary defines evil. There are plenty of web pages that proposed that Hitler was the most evil human being that ever lived, e.g. [1] but seeing it is a value judgment, no-one can "show" it definitively, it will always be a matter of opinion. Rockpocket 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Xmas Rocky!--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You are one of the few Admins I admire! :)--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear I have earned you admiration, which kind of makes me think we have interacted more significantly in the past, in another life perhaps? Anyway, no need to worry about that too much in this season of goodwill to all men. Happy Christmas to you too, Treesmiler. Rockpocket 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes lets forgive and forget at this time of good will to all men and women! (whichever you happen you be)--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Do the admins and the vandals come out and have a game of football in no-man's land? Lanfear's Bane | t 14:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem so. Problem is defining who is the real Wikipedian!

It would seem to be a gross simplification and trivialisation of the Third Reich to explain it with "...oh well, he was the most evil human being". Good and Evil, apart from being - highly arguable - human categories, are magnified / modified / minimised by the power of the individual to put into reality any of their plans, be they good or evil.

Once you attempt to define the concept of Evil, you run into all sorts of problems. Consider:

• Was the extinction of the dinosaurs (amongst many more) "good" or "evil" ?
• Is the survival of severely sick / disabled people "good" or "evil" ?
• If a radical solution to Global Warming were the violent reduction of the population of this planet to 3 billions, would this be "good" or "evil" ?

Finally, consider the obvious: Not a single country was spared the effects of WWII and not a single country would be what it is now.

So, the absurd - and disturbing - conclusion must be: Most of us would never have been born, had it not been for the existence of this, most evil, human being. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah there was a lot of love making going on during WW2 I believe.--TreeSmiler (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well a lot of us probably wouldn't have born (or at least the way we are) if Hitler waited even a day longer to commit suicide. What happened, happened, and you cannot change that... So looking in hindsight, although Hitler definitely is a very high candidate for 20th century evilness, I would not measure how evil a man is by the amount of body bags he has filled. There were probably men who were more evil out there who just didn't have the smarts or luck (probably luck) to rise to the top of a major world power. Having said that, if you are measuring actions alone and not intentions, you can't really get too much worse than almost elimination a nation of people. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're measuring by sheer number killed, Stalin is worse. If you're going by percentage of population affected, Ranavalona I of Madagascar is in the running too. But, as Croat Canuck said, other factors need to be considered. Elizabeth Bathory, if everything told about her is true, is up there - as is Gilles de Rais and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.57.116 (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget Mao. – I sometimes get a sense that some people need Hitler to be unique and inexplicable, partly so that warnings of rising fascism elsewhere can be shouted down. —Tamfang (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctors and accountants

How much do average doctors eg general practitioner roughly earn per year in New Zealand and Australia? Is it more than in a chartered accountant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.0.137 (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help me find this cable?

Im looking for an cable to connect my computer to my surround sound. I need one end to be a headphone input and the other end to be an audio output (the yellow end on American AV cords). Ive looked around and cant find one. Can you guys help me out, or if Im looking for the wrong cable help me out with what I might need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.134.93 (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean that you want to have the audio from your computer play on your "surround sound" (because you can't input sounds to your computer through the headphone jack). I'm pretty sure that, if you want the sound to be stereo (left/right), the input end (what you've called the audio output - the part that plugs into the stereo is actually the input) of the cable needs to be split into two endings - one for the left audio channel and one for the right (here in Australia they are typically coloured white and the other red). If it has only one ending then it is probably just mono sound. Not sure what a cable for 5.1 surround sound would be like, or even if a computer's headphone jack can output surround sound. Anyway, cables for headphone jack to stereo system definitely exist, I myself have one that I think I got from Jaycar (a electronics hobby shop). Another good place to get one would be a computer market or swapmeet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.109.169 (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't provide enough information for me to be sure what you need, but I'll try to answer anyways. From what I understand, you're trying to connect surround speakers (probably 5.1) to your computer's headphone jack. That would be impossible. Computers' headphone jacks have two channels, stereo, a surround system uses multiple channels. 6 channels in the case of a 5.1 system, which is currently the most common. To send surround from a computer to a surround system you thus need 3 output connectors in your sound card, each of which is stereo. If you don't have them, you can't possibly use a surround system. As for the suround system side, it really depends on the system itself. Some use RCA as their input, some use TRS (jack), some use some sort of a clip not sure how it's called.

Note that if your sound card has three output jacks, it doesn't mean you can connect a surround system. The green jack is for stereo (and the two front stereo speakers in a surround system), the pink jack is a mic input, and the blue jack is a line input. If you also have an orange and a black jacks, you can connect your surround system, if you don't, you can't.

In short: From the computer's side you might need a new sound card, you'll have to figure it out. From the surround system's side, you'll have to figure it out. 89.1.184.190 (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need a 1/8" headphone to phono connector. It's pretty common, it has 1 headphone jack on 1 end and 2 phono on the other end. It's pretty common cable. Radio

Shack should carry those. BTW yellow is usually the video. Red and white are the audio inputs. NYCDA (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] social security number

We noticed in your article on the SSA that SSA states it doesnr require a SSN to live and work in the USA. We also know since we have contacted the Citizen and Immigration service (cis) and ICE that 1. people need to be working under their own ssn; they cant be working under their spouses; child; cousin; whomever. 2. The person needs to be authorized to work in this country so if someone comes in as they married a citizen but havent been issued a green card yet since they dont get an automatic one; they arent allowed to work. These arent in your article at all. We are trying to find out the specific federal law that this comes under and even bugging CIS and ICE; we havent found it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.228.108.155 (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cite all pertainable evidence and place it. 65.163.112.128 (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean cite all pertainable evidence? This goes on in contract work all the time. We know as we have done over 25 years of various contract work. Currently in a particular company in the phone book delivery business; the company hires one person who in turn hires others who work under him. He is the only one paid. We do not know if these people he hires are legal or not; we suspect not. This same company also contracted with someone else who just got married to someone from another country. She was not given a green card when she got here yet she has been been working since she arrived in the USA.

Other delivery work we have done includes newspaper; flower; etc. No one checks to see if anyone has the right to work. The companies just want warm bodies to do the work.

What we would like to be able to reference and see for ourself is the USC that this comes under so we know how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.228.117.71 (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

SSN are not required because ITIN can be issued for those who are authorized to work. If your status permits you to legally work but does not permit a SSN, you can apply for an ITIN. NYCDA (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moccha salt

It is mentioned in Poached egg. No one knows what this is, and questions regarding it aren't answered. All that is known about moccha salt is:

1. It comes in a crystaline, or like crystaline form (at least sometimes).

2. It is green (at least sometimes).

3. It can be assumed to be edible in its green crystaline form.

4. It can be assumed to be complimentary with poached eggs.

None of the above have been tested, some or all of these assumptions could be false. All the assumptions are based on observation of the picture in said article, and the relationship between the picture and the article. What's moccha salt? 89.1.184.190 (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Poached eggs with moccha salt.jpg was sourced from flickr, here. Which makes it clear that it's matcha salt, not moccha. William Avery (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matrixism

Is Matrixism a real religion or not? 71.243.118.2 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously depends on how you define "real religion". I think most people would say "not", as it does not seem to involve genuine spirituality but is instead a pastiche of philosophical ideas derived primarily from a set of action movies starring Keanu Reaves, but really it's a question of definitions. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This was asked just a couple weeks ago. Please check the archives or see the article on The Matrix. Dismas|^(talk) 23:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This questioner is a troll - please don't feed. SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)