Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 January 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< January 12 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 14 >
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.


Contents


[edit] January 13

[edit] video

How can i acheive the following goal: take a video that is featured on the internet and get it saved to my computer?

I think you'd need some kind of video editing program. In your browser, you can right-click on the desired video, and then click "properties." A window will pop up that contains the path and file name of the video, usually ending with a dot and three letters (in the same fashion as www.***.com), known as an extension. Depending on the extension, the video editing software may be compatible with the file. My answer will probably be inferior to that which the folks at the Computing RefDesk would give, so I suggest that you visit them as well. V-Man737 01:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's to edit a video, not to save it. --24.147.86.187 01:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are just trying to download the video then it depends on how the video is being hosted. If it is in a flash-embedded player, like those on YouTube, then a google search for "download YouTube" will give you many options that claim to be able to do this. If it is a RealPlayer (RM) or ASX file then you often can't, at least not easily (you can download a link to the video but usually not the video itself). Give us some more info on the video and we might be able to help you more — a link to the site itself will give us a lot of information, even if it is not to the exact video you are trying to download. --24.147.86.187 01:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
There are several stream capture applications that will cap ASX --frothT 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Firefox has a plugin that allows you to save streaming media from certain sites. Might want to give it a try. BenC7 03:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Rose"

Is there any place on the internet where I can download a free copy of the song "The Rose" by Cara Dillon (originally sang by Bette Midler)? Thanks.

After a Google search, I decided that the song is probably unavailable on the internet. I mostly found it embedded in an album by Tommy Fleming, in which they sang the song together. Hope that helps! V-Man737 04:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Jamesino 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shakespeare's top works

What are generally considered to be Shakespeare's top three plays he wrote? Jamesino 03:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally: Hamlet then Romeo and Juliet then King Lear or Julius Ceasar --frothT 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, see Shakespeare's plays --frothT 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That definitely depends on your tastes, as well as if you're asking about the best-structured, or the most famous, or the most well-rounded, or the best at what it does (i.e., a comedy that actually makes people laugh). Certainly no three of them outdo the others on all the factors involved. My favorites? The Comedy of Errors, Midsummer Night's Dream, and Macbeth. They each have their individual appeals to me, and trying to figure which is better than the other is like trying to figure out whether a pretzel is more salty than the moon is bright. V-Man737 03:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
V-Man's comment in re salt v. moonlight is a point well taken, so ultimately you'll need criteria. If, for example, you go by which plays have broadly impacted culture the most, from which more lines have been adopted into the language, and which have kept scholars guessing, interpreting, and re-inventing, Hamlet must be at or near the top; centuries after the fact, Hamlet himself remains among the most complex characters in all of literature, and his supporting cast is dynamite - second to none. Romeo and Juliet is a strong second choice by virtue of its tremendous appeal alone, followed by Othello, Macbeth and King Lear in no order. Of course, these are all tragedies, but in a body of work like Shakespeare's, I would argue that history has responded the strongest to this category - and for good reason. Wolfgangus 13:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I hated Shakespeare at school; all that The Tempest stuff. So I gave up on the bard. And in my 50th year, my wife took me to a production of Midsummer Night's Dream in Edinburgh during the annual festival. It was so funny, and strangely, I completely understood the vernacular. So that is my number 1. Then I went to see Romeo and Juliet and it was so beautifully scripted, I cried, and I have since seen it on stage and screen and as a ballet (Prokofiev) many times, and each time, I cry - so that has to be my number 2. And then I saw Mel Gibson as Hamlet and I was astounded not just by his performance, which was stupendous, but by the relative accuracy of Shakespeare's treatment of what we now know as Psychology. Extremely thought-provoking but nevertheless, enthralling. So that has to be number 3. But I seek out as many productions of Shakespeare's plays as I can affordably get to in Scotland/England, and am prepared to be shouted down by others at my foregoing shortlist. The Bard was before/during/and after his time. What a gift from God.
The question is a reasonable one, unlike the comparison of a pretzel's saltitude and the Sun's luminance. For many artists one could answer the question which are generally considered their N best works, where N is a small number. For example, Truffaut's best three films might be the first three films he made. Among good artists, it is only for a rare few artists like Shakespeare that it is truly impossible to answer this question.  --LambiamTalk 23:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book references

I have noticed that some references that I have used have been changed. Sometimes it is the difference between the hard-cover and pocket book versions. Other times it is a latter edition. As the reference has been made against an actual book, should this be edited and altered? I have not found any policy on this.

On one occasion the ISBN check did not match. In this case I checked both my version and a new book offered for sale. Both had the unbalanced ISBN. This created a problem as the error could be either the number or the check. I chose to used the unbalanced ISBN as printed in the book.

I would like some guidance on this.

Thank you

DonJay 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You should reference the book that actually contained the information. If a more recent edition has been produced, it should be checked to make sure that it contains the relevant information before the reference is changed. BenC7 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Clicking on an ISBN number in Wikipedia leads to a page of book sources, and eventually to a webpage where one can order that book if it is in print. So if a book exists in several editions, and you only wish to refer someone to the book title, it helps if you cite an edition that is readily available. Obviously, if you are quoting from a yearbook or something else that changes with each edition, you need to cite the exact edition. Very occasionally, books are published with an incorrect ISBN. For this reason it is best to cite the 13-digit version of the ISBN that appears below the barcode on the book, as this is usually computer-generated. In fact, from January 2007 all ISBNs are supposed to be cited in their 13-digit form. There is a currently a bot poised to convert all the ISBNs in Wikipedia to this format, and this bot has already flagged incorrect ISBNs for manual correction.--Shantavira 10:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] High Jump

In the indoor track and field event of High Jump, at what point is the bar considered cleared? i.e. how long must one wait as the bar wiggles, before it is ruled a successful jump?

thanks, 74.37.228.44 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If one is to believe the BBC Sport Academy, "If the bar falls off before you leave the mat it is a failure". –mysid☎ 09:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'falls off before you leave the landing mat' rule was the rule at my school. I remember trying to dive off the mat in time to save myself from being eliminated! Some rules I found are..."Knocking the bar off the supports, or touching the ground or landing area beyond the plane of the uprights with any part of the body without clearing the bar shall count as a failure", also "If the bar falls off without having been knocked by the competitor (eg. due to strong wind) the competitor is not penalized." These are taken from the site www.littleathletics.com.au it doesn't mention a time-scale for the bar falling off so i'm not sure what rule applies to that specifically. ny156uk 10:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

At my track meet last week there was a discrepancy with this rule. The ref was using the mat rule, and a coach claimed that the rule is a myth. I'm in NY. Omnipotence407 12:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the USATF website

v. There is a mistaken belief that provided the jumper scrambles off the landing area before the bar falls, it does not count as a failure. This is quite wrong, and there is no rule to this effect.

So it seems to vary by country. --Omnipotence407 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the pope informally referred to as "His Palpalness"?

I've seen him (the Late Pope John Paul the 2nd) nicknamed as that in several magazines, chatrooms, and message boards. Why is this? The definition of "palp" is the insect's feeler, basically... I do not see the relation between an insect and a pope.

I think it's a play on the words 'papal' (from pope) and 'palp' (or even just 'pal') — Kieff 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Google finds no hits on "His Palpalness"?, but a number of hits on "His Papalness". That would be a play on "papal" (which, as just mentioned, means "of the Pope"). If some people out there is using "his palpalness", this is either a spelling error or a further degree of wordplay (i.e. they think it's funny that there's no connection between the Pope and a palp, or they like the way it sounds like "pal", or something). --Anonymous, January 13, 05:28 (UTC).
The Pope#Titles of the Pope gives some really great background on who people are talking about when they use these terms. However, "His Papalness" is not found anywhere in the article, let alone on any reliable internet source (that I've found with a glance at Google). "Papacy," meaning something pertaining to the Pope, would be a more correct form of this word. "Papalness" seems to be a colloquialism that ranges in nature from general title to highly derogatory. As to its origins, I am unable to find anything reliable. V-Man737 06:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the pope eat off papal plates ? :-) StuRat 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but I understand that by freezing holy water you get a pope-sicle. V-Man737 01:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most Sold Car

What is the most sold car and model for 2006?

I suspect it might be a Ford truck. However, you might need to be more specific. In the US? In the world? Also, the total numbers for 2006 probably aren't in, yet. --Mdwyer 06:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Within the Premier Automotive Group at least, the numbers are in by the 7th Jan each year. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cake

Can cake melt, excluding the frosting?

My guess is no. I believe it would denature or burn before it melted. That is, it would stop being cake. Individual ingredients might melt, though, especially the fats. --Mdwyer 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Check this out: Tantalyzingly promising, but I'm not sure how to make it work... ;_; At any rate, I've mostly heard of cake burning rather than melting (from too much heat). I'm willing to bet, though, that if a certain cake has too much fat in it, and it is kept at a constant, high temperature, its shape would slump and it would appear to "melt". However, this is not the same as a phase transition. V-Man737 06:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)(edit: er, well, the cake as a whole does not undergo a phase transition, but the saturated fat does.) V-Man737 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The thermal kinetics of starch gelatinization in the presence of other cake ingredients Who writes this stuff?!  :) --Mdwyer 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
People who are almost as bored as but twice as smart as us. V-Man737 07:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, that article sounds like it's more about cakes becoming solid as they bake rather than melting. I suspect you have to pay to learn more. When you bake a cake, the cake mix initially becomes less viscous (as you can see by it flattening out in the tin and loosing any mounds you may have made) before rising and solidifying. That may be the closest cakes get to melting.
Cake can kind of "melt" if it doesn't have enough rising agent. It turns into a sort of glutinous baked pudding. Not terribly nice. I made a birthday cake for my mother once as a "surprise", using "The Mystery Chef's" recipe (and it made me think he was anonymous for a reason). I ended up with a layer cake that was two layers of Mystery Chef butter cake, and one layer of Jiffy yellow cake mix. The Jiffy cake layer rose a good deal higher than the rather melted 2 layers of butter cake, which were interestingly leaden. My mother was surprised. I was even more surprised. Mothperson cocoon 20:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Skittle 17:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ice cream cake sure will. --Nelson Ricardo 17:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Remember the Donna Summers song MacArthur Park? -THB 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how is it possible?

When I look at recent changes I see like 150 edits per minute (not including vandalism). How is it possible to obtain that many edits within a minute?--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 06:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thousands of editors contribute to that number --frothT 06:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised the number is so low. — Kieff 08:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News Reports DEAD Birds:

The News services in Austin, Texas has reported that Birds have fallen out of the sky DEAD. Same for the Aussie News services, they too have reported DEAD Birds falling out of the sky. one sec. they're doing OK, then they're DEAD. Terrorists testing VX nerve gas ? 65.173.104.227 08:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What the -edited for language- is going on ? 65.173.104.227 08:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of us knows more than the news agencies in THIS GOOGLE RESULT. Anchoress 08:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In the actual event of VX nerve gas, it may be a good idea to run. V-Man737 10:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Reminds me of the Barton Fink movie... 惑乱 分からん 14:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
And Magnolia. For what it's worth, during an interview here in Austin, the county medical director claimed that it wasn't all that peculiar to see sixty birds die in this manner ... yet he didn't cite another example. Instead, he hinted that the deplorable hygiene practiced by birds may be to blame. We'll see. Wolfgangus 15:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

what is considered to be the second to the first spirit of the world? i thot alaska was the spirit of the world n it being the biggest state in us then the second wud be texas...but thats not it,but av bin told if i thoroughly googled it al get it..any help mates

Hm, that is a little bit vague, but this seemed to be the most relevant thing a Google search dug up. It seems "Spirit of the World" is an IMAX movie about Alaska. Are you asking about a second movie by this title (i.e., Spirit of the World 2)? I'm unable to find anything relevant indicating that one exists... V-Man737 13:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article writing difficulty

Dear Wikipedia,

I am interested in writing an article on a literary character and I have created an account but I cannot find a link that actually allows me to write an article. I continue to be redirected from one page to the next within the community portal and help areas but I cannot find one page that actually gives me the option of starting a page. I think I am missing something. Perhaps it is some sort of prerequisite approval process that I am unaware of. Please help.


Peter Roblejo

Hi Peter, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can start a new article by writing its desired title in the search box you see on the left. When a search page appears, click on the red link with the text "create this page" and you're ready to write the article. Wikipedia:Help Desk will help you with furhter questions. –mysid☎ 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Please bear in mind the article naming conventions before proceeding. Search for "John Smith", not john smith or John smith. If similar results appear, you will have to consider creating a better title, such as John Middlename Smith, or John Smith (racing driver). This will require what we call a disambiguation page, with which you should seek further help, perhaps from another editor. As a rule-of-thumb; read the help pages before starting an article. It will leave you better equipped to get started. Adrian M. H. 17:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] date ASU became a university

wanted to know the year Arizona state univeersity became a university. it was Arizona state college in the early 1950's

The year was 1958. Wolfgangus 15:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't that kind of thing be mentioned in Arizona State University? Nil Einne 15:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article definitely says 1885.

No, 1885 was when the school was founded, as a normal school, not when it became a university. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Day care

Are day cares really bad for your kids (in u.s.a).do they really make them sick? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.169.185 (Talk) (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 January 2007

It's the society that makes kids sick. The day care is just a symptom... =S 惑乱 分からん 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As I will state in my upcoming book, A Single, Childless Gay Man's Guide to Raising Children, what makes children these days allergic to so many things is overprotective partents who sterilize and sanitize everything. For goodness sake, let your kids play in the dirt and be exposed to germs while young. Otherwise, they will not build up tolerance and imunity. (I am not a doctor, and this is not medical advice.) --Nelson Ricardo 17:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Many people view a good child care, or pre-K school as being a very healthy positive experience for their children. They are exposed to different cultures, different peoples rules, and learn to socialize with others their own age, before kindergarten. As for disease, they have an opportunity to get immunity to a broad range of diseases even before going to formal school (K-12) and benefit from that greatly. Atom 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Physically? I'd have to agree with Nelson. Day cares and other childcare facilities, as well as some other businesses and even residences, are so concerned about "evil germs" and the chance of getting sued for medical care that they nuke everything of germs. Unfortunately, this helps breed chemical resistance and doesn't let the child's immune system build the antibody stocks they need. Cleaning is fine, but the fact is, (going to go a bit into opinion here) commercials such as Lysol's that say that all germs should be eliminated, destroyed, killed help promote this sort of rabid "can't have germs everywhere, can't have germs anywhere" mentality. As for emotionally, supplemental day-care is probably harmless, but dropping a kid off in day-care is no substitute for parenting, and while this might be good for them socially, it's probably not very good developmentally and for bonding with the parent, which is crucial. --Wooty Woot? contribs 19:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


I disagree with those who say daycares are bad for children. My mother ran a day care for several years and let me tell you , it was a very healthy environment. it depends on te day care i guess but my mothers was always clean as a whistle. I swear you could never get any germs from that place. The house was scrubbed clean each night and the place was always neat and tidy. It is not unhealthy mentally either. She taught those children valuable lessons in life that benefitted both the children and their parents. She even once (with parental permission) taught them abou the value of money and from that day on the parents all agreed that the children stopped asking for stuff all the time. It just depends on the day care but some are really helpful. i myself went to a Childrens World day care and learned so much from there. Whether in the house or at a day care facility day cares can really influence the way a child acts....negetivly if a bad one..and very positive if a good one. --Kittycat rox 23:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


As far as physical illnesses go, there is quite a bit on the net about "day care" +illness. In essence the medical research indicates that a young child in day care clinic (DCC) has an increased risk of sniffling, colds, sore throats and chest infections, compared to a child at home. Epidemic types of infections, such as meningitis, increase. Asthmatic babies have a greater incidence of wheezing and acute breathing difficulties (3x for age group 0-2). "Poor hygiene" infections (skin, diarrhoea, hepatitis) are increased, but can be significantly reduced with strict cleanliness habits. On the other hand, this difference decreases rapidly after 1 year of enrolment and disappears by 4-5 years of age. By 12 years, and in adulthood, the DCC kids have half the "allergies" - food, asthma, eczema - that at home kids have (simply living with older brothers or sisters, or on a farm, has the same effect). No difference in cancers, such as leukaemia or lymphoma. The most recent recommendation (2006) was that health-wise it would be wise to enrol the kid after the age of 1 year, if possible. --Seejyb 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, physically and mentally. -THB 18:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subheadings in exam questions

My niece was practising some old exam papers and asked me a the following question.

Exams questions are numbered 1,2,3... and subdivided into part questions a,b,c... but if a part question needs subdividing it's done as i, ii, iii, iv, ...... Now this is clearly based on the roman numeral system buy why is it in lower case? Roman numbers do not have lower cases numerals. I presume it's done now because of convention but thought it up in the first place and was there an actual reason for using lower case? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this depend on the exam? I don't think there is a worldwide standard. --Nelson Ricardo 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No it wouldn't I've seen it all over the place. Come to think of it, not just in exams, the use of lower case roman numerals as sub sub heading orderings is widespread, but why? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
This is standard practice in many publishing houses, though in some contexts the 1.b.iii scheme is giving way to a 1.2.3. scheme. The fact that the Romans never actually used a lower case is unlikely to bother anyone using this system. It makes it clear that this level is inferior to the one above it.--Shantavira 18:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Shantavira, 1.b.III doesn't properly convey the intended level structure very well. --hydnjo talk 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It's probably as simple as the fact that it's the default multilevel numbering in MSWord (blame it on Bill). In MSW, headings are numbered with proper roman numerals, then it's: number, letter, small rn, etc ad infinitum. Anchoress 20:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this has been common practice (as Shantavira said) for a long time. I presume Microsoft Word merely streamlined what many writers and editors would have wanted to do anyway. (So I don't think we can blame Bill here.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
From our article Roman numerals: "Sometimes the numerals are written using lower-case letters (thus: i, ii, iii, iv, etc.), particularly if numbering paragraphs or sections within chapters, or for the pagination of the front matter of a book."  --LambiamTalk 23:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Americans really think they are "nearly english"?

In the disgustingly violent film Kill Bill there is a dialogue that goes something like this:

Japanese cafe proprieter: "Are you english?"

Heroine: "I'm nearly english. I'm American."

As a british person I was shocked that Americans even in fiction could think they are nearly english, as to me they do not seem in the slightest like english people. 62.253.44.35 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

People that are not from the "west" basically do think of Americans and Brits as from the same tree. One would never confuse a Frenchman for a Brit or an American, but they view the cultural or political difference between the British and Americans as small, and unimportant for most things.
The U.S., of course is very widely culturally diverse. Yet, many still feel that their roots as Americans came from England, and a lerge number of people have some english heritage by blood. Culturally Americans and English have very similar cultures from the context of Japanese, Chinese or Korean cultures. Looking closely comparing cultures, there are a great similarities, and of course, a great number of large differences. The cultural stereotypes of each are indeed fairly different from the view of someone who is very American, or very British. But, the point of the humor, I think, is that in the same way the we Americans and Brits lump all asian cultures together, and want to think of them as all being basically the same, is the same way that many cultures view Americans and Brits.

I would say that (in order) that Scottish, Welsh, New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians, and then Europeans are more similar to english people than Americans. I belive far more americans have German ancestry than British ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.44.35 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 January 2007

The 2000 Census shows about 43 Million of German descent, and 25 million of English descent. (Roughly 16% and 8% respectively by total population.) German americans were highly visible pre WWII, but after that, lost visibility.

Also, a common view (misconception) is that essentially, Scottish, Welsh, NZ Canadians and Australians ARE part of the U.K., aren't they? Americans are merely closely related to the british. American is seen as predominantly influenced by England, and only marginally by France. For instance, laws in all states are based on English common law (except for Lousiana, which is based on French Law). Atom 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


Americans definitely do not think of ourselves as "nearly English". We might possibly think of the English as "nearly American", though of course not so nearly as Canadians. --Trovatore 19:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about that line - without knowing the full context - the funnier it gets. I've never met a fellow American who imagined his American identity as 'nearly English', but the line hints at a perceived inferiority complex among some Americans, as well as Trovatore pointing out the contrary, along with a jab at the presumed, perceived, arrogance of Americans in general. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but Tarantino's humor is rarely so incidental. Wolfgangus 19:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The humor is, as mentioned before, that all Americans lump all dark skinned people as "Africans", all Asians together as Japanese or Chinese, all hispanics as Mexicans, and all Eastern europeans (previous eastern block nations) as Russians. The film plays heavily on racial and cultural stereotyping. The reverse stereotyping that all Westerners are viewed as essentially Brits is the intent, I think. (See Ethnic stereotypes in American media).

The inferiority complex doesn't click, because, as you say, the stereotype for Americans is of an arrogant, large, loud, loutish Texan with a large ego. Brit's are portrayed as unecessarily prissy, sexually cold, submissive, overly proper, prudish, and with bad teeth. Of course, the French, the Italians and Greeks have their own stereotypes. Spaniards, Belgians and Dutch don't have much visibility. Although Dutch might be combined with a general setreotype of Swedes, Finns and Norwegians as tall, sexy but rather dumb and overly easy going. Note: I don't believe any of these stereotypes, and thank goodness none of them are any more relevant than thinking all Americans are like George Bush. (A rich preppy North-Eastern mama's boy -- pretending to be an arrogant, large, loud, loutish Texan with a large ego.) Atom 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm American, and I don't think I'm "nearly English". Though if asked by a Japanese, I might just say "close—I'm American". To me, there is a kinship that is about culture, not ancestry. I remember many years ago being on a ferry from Ostende to Dover and having a strong feeling of coming home. Marco polo 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As a Briton, I've never understood why the Americans would think we're prudish or proper (and it seems to be an enduring stereotype regularly trotted out). In my experience, Americans are far more prudish and proper than the British. Just look at the amount of nudity and swearing the BBC shows after 9pm compared to mainstream US TV channels, the fact that the Americans seem incapable of calling a toilet a toilet (just for the record, public toilets have no baths in them and you don't visit them to have a rest!), and the common American habit of addressing people as "Sir", "Ma'am" or "Miss" (most British people wouldn't dream of doing that unless they were members of a uniformed service, serving a customer - and it's getting uncommon in that context, or addressing a teacher at school). -- Necrothesp 01:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, we're wandering a bit from the already tenuous point, but maybe I can help you on the "toilet" question. In the US, "toilet" does not mean the room. It means the actual apparatus (what do y'all call it, BTW?), the thing with a seat and water underneath it. That's why "going to the toilet" sounds a bit overly direct to American ears. --Trovatore 01:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Lately, to avert confusion among my intercontinental friends, I simply explain that I am going to urinate. They infer where. Speaking of which... V-Man737 05:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The American impression of British people is the Masterpiece Theatre -- note the pretentious -re spelling -- stereotype of upper-class Victorian lords and ladies. The only English people most Americans have seen who don't speak like Queen Elizabeth II (or Shakespearian characters) are The Beatles. And British culture is still far more formal than American culture in some respects. When I was working in Europe, a British colleague of mine was shocked at the informality of the reply I got to an e-mail I had sent to an American company. I had mentioned I had used their product in my home state, which turned out to be the customer-service guy's home state too, so he included a crack about our local NFL team in his reply e-mail. I think Americans are also far less likely to use last names to address people -- teachers and people over 70 are about the only people called Mr. or Mrs. nowadays. -- Mwalcoff 05:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Same in Britain. Mr and Mrs are hardly ever used. People are usually on first-name terms with their bosses, for instance. As to the "toilet", well yes, I realise Americans don't use it for the room, but that was actually my point! In British homes the toilet is invariably in the bathroom too, but you still wouldn't say "can I use the bathroom?" if you wanted to use the toilet. That would imply you wanted to have a bath! You'd say "can I use the toilet?" To refer to the toilet as the bathroom or the restroom implies embarrassment at referring to a perfectly natural bodily function, which the British don't really have a problem with. We call the actual apparatus the "toilet" too, incidentally, or more commonly the "loo" ("can I use your loo?" is also a perfectly acceptable thing to say when visiting someone's house). -- Necrothesp 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute -- you use it for both the apparatus and the room? That's frankly bizarre. So you can say "how many toilets are there in that toilet" and no one will think it's strange? --Trovatore 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, in Britain: actual piece of apparatus designed for use by male or female = "toilet"; actual piece of apparatus designed for males to stand up and use in a public facility = "urinal"; room containing only a (single) toilet = "toilet"; room containing a toilet and a bath = "bathroom"; public facility containing multiple urinals and/or cubicles with toilets in them = "toilets"; cubicle with a toilet in it as part of a larger public facility = "toilet cubicle". Yes, for the larger facility we just use the plural, which makes perfect sense to me. And yet you think it's perfectly normal to refer to something without a bath in it as a "bathroom" and something you visit to use the toilet as a "restroom". Now that I find weird. Why not call a spade a spade, as they say? -- Necrothesp 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I'm not sure your list is entirely accurate; I think the "worst toilet in Scotland" in the film "Trainspotting" had more than one fixture in it. Still, even if it is, it's still, by my lights, extremely bizarre that a room with one toilet would itself be a toilet. You presumably don't call your kitchens "ovens", your studies "desks", your living rooms "fireplaces". But maybe I shouldn't be all that surprised, given that I already knew you sometimes have tea with your tea. --Trovatore 22:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, far less bizarre than calling a room without a bath in it a bathroom. Have you thought that possibly "toilet" in this instance is just an abbreviation of "toilet room"? People use shortened forms of terms even in America, I suspect. The meaning is obvious by the context. -- Necrothesp 11:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Reminds of my first day at work, I was wondering around the corridors looking for the toilet. Met a lady and asked her 'Perhaps you can help me, I'm looking for a loo?" to which she answered "Lou who?". Perhaps she was of American descent :) Sandman30s 12:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But I think - as a Californian transplanted in Texas, for the record - that Americans with an acute sense of that arrogant stereotype are more interested in distancing themselves from it. For example, during the time I've spent in Europe, I've always been painfully conscious of the 'ugly American' and probably overreacted more than once to convince Europeans that I wasn't one of those Americans. As a concerted effort to elude that stereotype, it becomes a push to counter an unflattering perception, one made from a position of inferiority. If I omitted perceived from the sentence above and amended it to suggest the complex exists among Americans interested in dodging the stereotype - Americans with a conscience, let's say - I think it becomes just such a complex. It's convenient - and maybe even a measure of personal safety - for some Americans abroad to claim they're Canadian simply to avoid the mounting hassles tied to the nationality. Denying one's nationality as self-preservation is one thing, but doing so because the associated stereotypes are embarrassing, quite another. Wolfgangus 21:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Many Americans have all or mostly English blood in our veins. After Canada, we consider England to be the most similar culture. And there are plenty of anglophilic Americans running around. -THB 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that canada is very similar to america, but recently (at least in my experience) it's become popular to mock canada, mostly for their puny armed forces, their comical (and of course untrue) habit of driking gallons of delicious maple syrup every day, and their unusual accents --frothT 02:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the U.S. is more similar to the other predominantly English-speaking countries (Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and to some degree Ireland) than it is to any other countries. American attitudes toward families, work and the role of the state, while hardly identical with those of the UK, are closer to those than they are to the views of, say, France or Mexico. The World Values Survey map puts the English-speaking countries in the same blob (although Great Britain is now closer to Austria, Luxembourg, Belgium, France and Italy than to the rest of the "Anglosphere," including Northern Ireland). The English-speaking blob of countries is more religious than the Protestant Europe and "Confucian" blobs and more concerned with "self-expression" and individual freedom than the Ex-Communist and Third World (South Asia, Africa and Latin America) blobs. -- Mwalcoff 06:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I live in the USA, and I dont think I am english.Rya Min 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say America is more English than England. After all, England uses the metric system, while America uses the English system. America retains the spirit of independence for which England was once known, while England has become a member of the EC. America has the greatest navy in the world now, not England, and has more of an empire (economic) than England, these days. StuRat 09:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This has resulted in some very strange situations, for example the fact that the only nation that has so far put a man on the Moon is still counting distances in multiples of an average hand's width. Not only that, but it's the only nation to do so. Because of the USA's dominance in worldwide communication, though, I'd guess that the average European has to have a more readily available basic knowledge of the American standard system than the average American has to have of the metric system. So the majority must cater for the minority, not the other way around. JIP | Talk 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the metric system has been the official measurement system of the U.S. government since 1992. It's just that the U.S. government, unlike the governments of other countries, has not felt it proper to try to force private citizens to use the system. -- Mwalcoff 19:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the precise dialogue is:

SUSHI CHEF: English?

BRIDE: Almost -- American.

Which leads to a most basic reading: "Am I English? No, but f--k it - you're close enough." Wolfgangus 10:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, we don't think of ourselves as even remotely English. If anything, we're anti-English, particularly when it comes to The Ashes. However, we often characterise our trans-Tasman cousins in New Zealand as "more English than the English". JackofOz 00:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, we see ourselves as fairly British-like (though not necessarily English), and think of ther Aussies as "wannabe Americans" :) In more seriousness, if it was a continuum, I'd say:
English <-> NZers, Scots and Welsh <-> Aussies, Canadians and Irish <-> Americans.
Grutness...wha? 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Revelation

The article Book of Revelation has some formatting issues... main paragrahs are being shown in the footnote area. If anyone is good at formatting then pls. have a look at it. I tried looking at the source but was not able to figureout the reason for such a display...

Thank you --IndianCow Talk 20:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

With a quick glance at the article, I'd say it seems to have a fairly good description (especially with the HTML code in the text) at WP:SPCP. Use the article's talk page or other Wikipedia attention-getting pages to get it fixed. V-Man737 21:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real Esate URL

I'm trying to get smart people's opinion on this, so I thought I'd ask here. What would be a good URL name for a service that pools people's money together to flip real estate? Thank you!--orphan frequently 21:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • www.thebubblesnotpoppedyetsospeculatenow.com -THB 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • www.flipoffrealestate.com V-Man737 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publicly Held Corporation

Question moved here from the Language reference desk.  --LambiamTalk 10:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hallo,

can somebody tell me, if the are any requirements a corporation has to fulfill before forming a publicly held corporation, i.e. to offer its shares to the public on a stock market ? Thanks

77.179.14.254 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

They are many and depend on the jurisdiction and the stock market on which the company seeks to offer shares. I suggest visiting the websites of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, had a look at the mentioned sites, but I can't find anything about e.g. a minimum capital that is required to form a publicly held corporation. In the UK you can only form a "PLC" (British companion piece to publicly held corp.) with a minimum nominal sahre capital of 50.000 Pounds and in Gemanny it is 50.000€ for a "AG"(Aktiengesellschaft). Is there any capital that is needed before forming Corporation that offers its stocks to the public?

Thanks

I do not think that there is a minimum capital requirement in the United States for forming a publicly traded corporation. However, there are some exacting regulatory requirements, including extensive financial and other documentation, and there is an incorporation fee that varies by state but is usually between $500 and $1,000. The cost of meeting the regulatory requirements would typically exceed the incorporation fee by a considerable amount. So, while there is no legal minimum capital requirement, a minimum of several thousand dollars is required in practice to meet the various requirements. Beyond this, it may be difficult (but not impossible) to attract purchasers of shares without some initial assets. Marco polo 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incan Gods.

Could I see some images of the gods as well as an explanation of their meaning?

I suggest you start with Category:Inca deities and work from there. Dismas|(talk) 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)