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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< July 11 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 13 >
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] July 13

[edit] Animal cruelty = law?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?

I don't see an actual question, just a bunch of question marks. Is this some strange font my computer can't display ? Judging from the title, if your question is about laws on animal cruelty, we would need to know your location to answer. StuRat 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
US is title true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.141.57 (talk • contribs)
What title? Are you asking whether there is such a U.S. law as the Animal Cruelty Law or Animal Cruelty Act? -- JackofOz 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The question was originally about whether or not it is legal to boil one's own dog to death. The OP then replaced that with a series of question marks. The answer has to be Wikipedia does not give legal advice - but in my opinion, boiling a dog to death would render one criminally liable in most jurisdictions, as well as being revoltingly cruel. DuncanHill 01:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
what if you eat it
Most states have laws against animal cruelty, but the definition of animal cruelty differs quite a bit from state to state. --24.147.86.187 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, someone boiling a dog to death is also obviously suffering from mental probs, and might be involuntarily committed. StuRat 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many regions of the world where people eat dogs, including about 10 percent of the South Korean population. The methods of killing these dogs include "beating, strangling, boiling" (according to Slate). Unless you consider a significant proportion of south South East Asia to be "suffering from mental probs" it might be worth re-considering that culturally biased generalization. Rockpocket 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not in South East Asia, but in most of the Western world people would be boiling an animal out of cruelty or derangement, not for food. Mental problems are always a matter of perspective, and in the west, having a desire to boil a dog alive would definitely fall into that category --Laugh! 07:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually dog meat is perfectly legal in a number of US states and in Canada (though killing a dog in an inhumane way is not). Its also not uncommon in cultures outside Asia. You have to boil the dog to remove the hair prior to skinning. (Note: this source contains photographs some might find offensive) Of course, one could kill the dog in a more humane way before boiling, but often they will be boiled alive, presumably to save time and effort. Rockpocket 07:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how a dog tastes. --Taraborn 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
According to a chinese friend of mine, it tastes good. Like chicken. Raul654 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Everything tastes like chicken DuncanHill 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If my memory serves me right it kinda taste like a cross between pork and chicken, and it's said that dog meat is very good at fending off the cold in winter, but I think that's only because of the massive amount of ginger they put in... But that's nearly a decade ago so I may be recalling complete BS. --antilivedT | C | G 23:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, I'd imagine it as being rather salty, although I've never read up on the topic --Laugh! 03:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to skin it anyway, why take an extra step to remove the hair first? —Tamfang 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power peak in cars

Why is it that the power curve of a car generally increases as the RPM's increase up to a certain point (the peak), and then drops off as the RPM's keep increasing? It seems intuitive to think that the more RPM's the engine's turning out, the more power the engine would be turning out as well indefinately. Acceptable 00:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You run into limits on how much gas (as in oxygen/nitrogen/gasoline vapor) you can flow into the engine. Remember, if it's not supercharged or turbocharged, there's only 14.7 PSI of pressure available to push gas into the engine and there's certainly some resistance in the induction system. Even with a supercharger, there's still a finite amount of pressure, albeit higher than 14.7 PSI.
There are also frictional losses, oil turbulence, etc., all of which mount with engine speed and some of which have an exponent greater than 1 (square law, etc.).
Atlant 00:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, your engine's valve timing, probably chosen for moderate engine speed, will not remain optimal at very high engine speeds. This has to do with finite rates of gas flow and mixing as Atlant explained above, with inertia of the valves, and with finite propagation speed of the combustion process. See Valve timing, Variable valve timing, and Continuously variable valve timing. At extreme rpm:s (beyond redline), the valves may not have time to close fully at all, and bad things will happen to your engine (as well as to your output power). --mglg(talk) 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Atlant, but if my engine is not receiving enough gas, then won't I not be able to achieve the RPM's that does not give enough gas into my engine? For example, if at 5000 RPM my engine stop receving oxygen, then the max I can rev is 5000 RPM right? I can't go beyond that if my engine is not receiving oxygen at RPM's beyond that. Thanks. Acceptable 01:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(Just a clarification: When I said "gas", I meant "gas as in the state of matter", not gasoline/petrol/benzine/etc.; I don't know if I made that entirely clear.) The problem is that pumping the gas through the engine also consumes power and, at some RPM, the engine is now spending all of its energy simply keeping the gas stream flowing through itself (along with covering all the other mechanical energy losses); there's no further energy available to accelerate the engine further.
Atlant 13:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be an unusual thing for the car to be unable to feed enough gasoline into the engine - the limiting factor is generally the amount of air you can get into the cylinder. Almost everything that's done to make engines go faster is on the air intake side of things. Twin carburettors, superchargers, turbochargers, bigger air intakes, throttle bodies and intercoolers are all about getting more air into the machine to enable it to burn more of the readily available gasoline. The limiting factor with high RPM/redline is generally just that the engine will destroy itself if it's pushed too hard. Something will break or wear out very quickly. Modern cars often have rev-limiters that cut the throttle if the engine RPM comes close to whatever the manufacturer recommends - but that's typically just something programmed into the engine management computer - take that out and the engine will rev until it breaks in most cars. SteveBaker 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Any engine obviously has to provide fuel and oxygen to get energy. The internal combustion engine, unlike gas turbines or steam engines or such, is unique in that the combustion occurs inside the air pump; it pumps 3/4 of the time, then for 1/4 of the time the combustion pressure vice versas, so that the pressure drives the pump instead of the other way around. Look at it that way, and the faster it turns, the more air it pumps; the more air it pumps, the more fuel you can burn; the more fuel you can burn, the more energy you can deliver. But as people pointed out, at some point the drag is just so high it can't pump any more air, and power peaks. Above that, you're still not pumping any more air, but drag is still increasing, so power drops.
This characteristic of highest torque at higher rpms because it has to pump its own air is what makes internal combustion engine so susceptible to stalling at low rpms. Turbines, steam engines, electric motors, etc. all have max torque at zero rpm, which is really nice. Gzuckier 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, thank you everyone for clearing this up. On a side question, how do the naturally-aspirated Formula One engines spin to such high RPM's? Acceptable 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

They may have specially designed parts to make that possible - but mostly the engines are completely rebuilt at the end of every race - so they only have to last a few hours without destroying themselves. If you remove the rev limiter from a regular car and feed it enough air - it'll rev pretty amazingly high before it destroys itself. Just look at how many Formula 1 cars don't make it to the end of the race! You could design a family car to run that way - but most brand new car owners would prefer that their car make it all the way back from the dealership before blowing up - and a "60-minute/100 mile" warranty wouldn't exactly inspire you to rush out and buy the car - even if it could do 0-60 in 2 seconds and 250mph top speed! SteveBaker 22:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum acceleration and towing

How should I drive a manual car if I want to achieve the fastest possible 0-60 mph times? Do I rev near redline then slowly release clutch, hence multiplying torque, then quickly shift gears? Also, a non-related question, how should I drive me car if I want to tow the maximum possible mass that my car can tow? Do I also rev until the car's redline, and then smoke the clutch by keeping it at a slip?

Thanks. Acceptable 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

0-60 times: This has been discussed here before - and to get the absolute fastest time is a little tricky. On launch, you shouldn't slowly release the clutch (that'll wear it out very quickly - and it's wasting valuable time!) you need to preset the revs then 'dump' the clutch as fast as your car can stand it. You want the most revs you can so it doesn't stall out when you dump the clutch quickly - but not so much that you get wheel (spin because tyres have less traction when they are slipping than when they aren't). Then, the simplest thing is to stay in the lowest gear until you are close to redline - then shift as fast as you can - then accellerate up to redline again and shift again - until you hit 60mph.
Whilst that's the simplest rule of thumb - and how most people drive - you can actually do better than that if you understand the torque curve of your engine and the gear ratios of the transmission. Ideally, you should shift at the point where the torque in your present gear is declining below what the torque would be at the same RPM in the next gear up. This might be close to redline - but not on every car. You need to know your car very well to do this. To get the best possible shift times for my tricked out MINI Cooper'S, I had to write a computer program to calculate the theoretical perfect shift points using an actual dynamometer printout I had done for my car.
However, in practice, the amount of time it takes you to shift gears has an impact on that. If you are a bit slower in shifting, you need to shift later and let the revs drop a little as the shifter moves through neutral. On a reasonably powerful car, you can get tyre squeal not just on launch - but also when shifting 1st to 2nd - and on a very powerful car, from 2nd to 3rd (although you'll probably be over 60mph by the time that matters!) - tyre squeal is bad because it means lost traction - but shifting a bit off from perfection in order to avoid that is lost torque. It took me a lot of practice to reach the theoretical best 0-60 time for my car. I used a G-tech accellerometer to measure my times. Worse still, when I stopped practicing for a month or so, the next time I tried I was nearly half a second off my best time...so I guess you need to keep practicing indefinitely to stay good at it.
There are some other cheap tricks:
  • If your car is supercharged or turbocharged, the weather (temperature and pressure) will have a significant bearing on your best times - do your timing runs when it's coolest and if you're driving at the limits you'll get consistantly better times.
  • Dumping a small block of dry ice onto the intercooler (if your car has one) is a neat way to get better one-off 0-60 times if you need to win a bet!
  • If you have to repeat your performance a few times, the dry ice isn't going to be there after the first run! So some people connect up their windshield washer motor to squirt water onto the intercooler just before they launch. As the water evaporates, it cools the air that the super/turbocharger has compressed and makes it easier to push more air into the cylinder!
  • Since shifting takes time and wastes torque, you may wish to omit the last shift in a 0-60 run and just continue in the highest gear before that...it depends on how good your gearbox and clutch are - and how good at shifting you are - and how close to 60mph you are when the last shift 'comes due'!
  • Some cars benefit from some octane booster in the tank.
  • Using lower profile tyres reduces the diameter of the wheel and results in more torque (although it reduces the top speed in each gear - so you might have to shift one more time - which would probably wipe out the benefits!)
  • Don't forget to turn off your A/C! This gadget eats 5% to 15% of your engine power (depending on the horsepower of your car) - so turning it off is a HUGE win for performance.
  • If you have traction control - and you are good at doing this stuff - then turn that off too. But if you're not already pretty good at controlling wheel spin - leave it turned on.
  • Keep the car light - don't bring a passenger along! Consider doing the run on an almost empty gas tank. 20 gallons of gas weighs something like 120lbs! This is always a win on a front wheel drive car - but maybe on a rear-wheel drive, the extra weight over the rear wheels is worth having - in which case the advice is reversed - fill up before you race.
  • Don't 'rice up' your car with spoilers and air dams and crap - those are pretty much all decorative - you don't need them - they weigh a ton and they probably ruin the aerodynamics.
Of course it goes without saying that I'm not advising you to actually DO any of these things because it might be dangerous - and you certainly shouldn't do it on public roads! SteveBaker 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Towing: Well, the deal here is that you can ruin transmission and clutch if you aren't careful - and you don't want to strain the engine if you can avoid it. Do very gentle starts - stay in a low gear longer - but don't jam down the gas pedal - do everything as gently and smoothly as you can. You probably won't want to use 'overdrive' (avoid 5th/6th gears if your vehicle has them) The maximum weight you can SAFELY tow follows the rule of thumb that the total weight of trailer and load should always be less than half the weight of the car itself...preferably much less! Pay special attention to engine temperatures - because you'll be driving in a lower gear most of the time, your engine will be turning more RPM's than usual and it may overheat. Check your coolant levels every trip - keep an eye on your engine temperature gauge. If your trailer has proper brakes then use them - if not, try to do the majority of your slowing down using the engine - and again, don't leave it until the last moment - try to drive as gently and smoothely as you can. For larger trailers, consider buying one of those sway control arms that damp down oscillations if the trailer gets blown sideways by big trucks and such.
SteveBaker 03:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve I was going to say time for a new branch of the reference desk, but you should be given a tv show!  : ) Mhicaoidh 08:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a car nut. QED. SteveBaker 22:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but what if I was trying to "break a record" in towing with my car? Trying to tow the maximum possible weight, with complete disregard to well-being of my car, clutch, etc... Do I then redline my RPM's, and keep the clutch at a slip? Acceptable 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're going for straight towing power, you'll want to stay in first gear. Depending on how strong your car's frame is, how the load is attached (rope vs trailer hitch), and whether the load is on wheels or dragging determines how you should get it moving. --Carnildo 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have no regard for the state of the car afterwards - then the rules for maximum accelleration while towing are no different than without something on tow. The difference is that with all that extra weight, you're going to damage the car in the process. As I said in answer to another question today: Torque is the amount of rotational force coming out of the engine - rotational force is turned into linear force by the wheels - and accelleration is force divided by mass. So for the best accelleration you need the engine turning within the RPM range where the torque is highest and you need the mass to be as low as possible. It's that simple. For best 0-60 you need to use the gearbox to maximise the amount of time you're in that RPM range and minimise the amount of time the engine is disconnected from the wheels because you are shifting. SteveBaker 22:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] genral

what is proactive

You mean the skin care product? or the word in general? --YbborTalk 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
For the word in general, it means taking action before the crisis occurs, as opposed to waiting for it. For example, clearing out underbrush to prevent forest fires is a proactive approach, while waiting for the fire and then spraying water on it is the more traditional approach. This is a favorite business buzzword. See Wiktionary:proactive. BTW, this would be an excellent Q for the Language Ref Desk. StuRat 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey! The Rat's back. Welcome. (Honey, call the exterminator.) Clarityfiend 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
See Proactive, the opposite of Reactive, or perhaps Proactiv Solution. Rockpocket 07:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my car

my renault laguna says,automatic transmission is working in safety mode.what do i do ? ,what is wrong with the car? what does it mean? Thanks Crazytopbird.

Take it to the shop. You would probably have figured that out if you googled it --Laugh! 12:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh i c,you are obviously as dim as i,as you dont have the answer either!!,rofl.

Nope, I have the answer. Take it to a shop. Again, simply googling this could've told you that. On the other hand, how in the world does someone with such awful grammar, spelling, punctuation, and attitude make enough money to afford a car like that? --Laugh! 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The punctuation is bad and some capital letters would help, but what's wrong with the grammar or spelling (apart from "c" for "see")? —Tamfang 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No, really, take it to a garage to get properly fixed. When there's something wrong with a modern car, there's not a lot that an untrained person can do. If you don't know what you're doing, it could be dangerous to try to sort it out yourself. Take it to a trustworthy mechanic and get it properly sorted. Skittle 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Here, then. Found using Google. QED. --LarryMac | Talk 20:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

ROFL,its not as if renaults are that expensive!!

Thanks for that link mate.xx

Modern cars have computers to monitor everything - many with automatic transmissions have a computer that keeps track of how fast they shift and whether they are slipping and other parameters that can warn of impending problems. When the computer finds something about to break, it may be able to take actions like reducing the RPM that it shifts at - or limiting the engine RPM's) to limit the damage or prolong the life of the transmission long enough for you to get it seen to. (Hence 'Safety Mode') However, without the appropriate diagnostic tool, you can't know more than that because it hasn't failed yet. Go to a Renault dealership - they'll be able to plug a diagnostic computer into the OBD-II socket down under the steering wheel and ask the computer EXACTLY what it thinks the trouble is. Since transmissions are expensive - and this could be something preventable (like maybe your transmission fluid is low) then getting it diagnosed ASAP could save you a bunch of cash later on. Even if you don't have the Renault shop actually do the work of fixing it - at least pay them the minimum to diagnose it for you. SteveBaker 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that,best info recieved so far,obviously someone who knows what there talking about.Thanks Crazytopbird

[edit] Switching Power Supply Blues

I don't know what has gotten into today's SMPS. They're now really notorious for giving electric shocks (not the very nasty 250V direct mains shock, a mild tingling, quite annoying; I usually play it safe and earth the device being powered if there's an exposed metal that doesn't deliver any power) even though they have a transformer that is supposed to isolate the primary and secondary sides. Please bear with me here and apologies about it's length; it's a long story here and is my personal experience...

In my first case, the laptop's OEM SMPS that came with it (an ACER) just died for no reason (I plugged to DC output into the laptop first then plugged it into the mains and switched it on; the screen flickered only once and that's it) so I had to buy a new one. The salesman said a transient in the power supply could have blown the internals. I ended up buying a universal laptop charger as a substitute. It was inherently safe for many days before I checked it with a test pen, the neon light in the test pen was glowing.

The second case involves a second-hand laptop that came with the "shocking-capable" power supply. One day, I decided to check the potential difference between earth and the laptop's metal connector (The earthed/ground returns) with my analogue multimeter. After a few connections(One time the needle deflected backwards with the positive probe connected to the computer and the negative being held with my fingers) it went POP! The battery LED on the laptop went off and now it wouldn't turn on. The technician replaced the power supply and it was okay; the laptop turns on and no shocks! But somehow I accidentally dropped it, and now it gives shocks. It seems to apply to the above SMPS and the other portable ones (I thought those power supplies were durable).

Third case describes how incompatible other power supplies are. I plugged in my MP4 charger (it has a USB connector so it has to generate 5V @ 500mA) into the USB cable provided for an Innostream battery charging dock and tried to charge the battery. Next thing I knew, the power supply was sparking inside! I had to make an emergency switch off and the power supply was giving out a toxic odour when I smelled it. Since then I never dared to use it again and just charged my MP4 player via the computer.

Fourth case has involved my safe DVD player becoming the same "shockable" type. With my speakers plugged into the power supply and the signal input floating, I touched the screws that hold the cover closed. I heard some buzzing come from the speakers, and when I touched the screw again, the buzzing came on together with a mild tingling. The test pen check shows it all, the SMPS in the DVD player has become the "shockable" type.

The fifth (and final case I'll describe here since my question is getting way too long) is regarding the 2nd hand laptop SMPS. I used my earthing procedure (see above) and when I turned it on, it started sparking inside and my computer's LCD screen flickered (Guess it was dumping huge spikes of current to ground)! Again, I never dared to use it, so does the laptop since I cannot charge it's dead battery.

Well, that's all I'll say here for now. Through some of the stories I've read over the internet, it seems that switching supplies can become a fail-deadly device capable of destroying input stages in amplifiers to outright killing people in the extreme worst case scenario. I wonder what to do if one of these ever happens again... --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One reason you can get shocked from SMPSs is that they commonly contain an EMI filter as part of their mains inlet wiring. This filter often has large-valued capacitors connected to the earth/ground pin of the mains lead. When you don't correctly earth the power supply, the capacitors form a voltage divider that causes the metal case of the SMPS (and anything else connected to the SMPS's "ground/reference lead") to float at about half the mains voltage. In extreme cases, this can be enough to cause electrocution. SMPSs that have a three-wire power inlet connector must be properly earthed/grounded. (Also see power entry module.)
A while back, one or another of the Reference Desks had a lengthy discussion on this.
With regard to PSUs that spark internally, well, some cheaply-manufactured or poorly-designed stuff just sucks. And it still can receive UL/VDE/CSA approval as long as it doesn't emit flames beyond the casing or electrocute you!
Atlant 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Many SMPSs these days are required to have the EMI filter just to pass EMI regulations. A safe SMPS would be a computer power supply and some peripherals where (in my area) it's power connector is a type G plug terminated with an power inlet connector at it's end. It's supposed to be very safe but if the earth end of the British plug is not making proper contact, it makes the SMPS unsafe. I ever experienced the "faulty earth shock" from my HP printer; the SMPS was built inside and the plug is connected to the extension socket. It looks innocuous but when I plugged it into a USB socket on my computer, all the circuit breakers protecting the USB ports tripped (Windows said a "power surge on USB hub" occurred and I had to click Reset on the many dialogue boxes that popped up). I remembered touching the metal part of the USB connector and getting a shock from it. Using my test pen, it glowed until I unplugged and plugged it in again; the test pen stopped glowing. Seemed that the earth connection would break if I pressed the plug into the socket. The printer was completely safe with the USB connector plugged in; the AC current making it's way through earth is being conducted away by the metal thing in the socket.
Actually, the laptop's SMPSs I mentioned above is using some kind of dangerous plug. It has the British plug at one end but a C7 socket at it's end! So, the SMPS is actually unearthed. The Acer laptop was very nicely insulated that I never had a shock from it, unless I would touch any exposed metal part.
In my area, type C plugs are used with A/V equipment (the TV, the satellite TV decoder, the VCR and the DVD player ALL use type C plugs). Due to this, the equipment is not earthed, unless it's connected to an earthed equipment and if all of them are connected and one of their SMPSs becomes energised with AC, all of them becomes energised. Strangely, the VCR (Panasonic brand), being unearthed and having an SMPS, doesn't give me an electric shock at all, all the way from the time I bought it to the time it's video heads got broken due to wear and tear. About the internal sparkings due to earthing it, it might have to deal with the main AC EMI capacitor taking a huge amount of voltage then breaking down.
Regarding the info that a discussion like this has occurred before, where is it? --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photogenicity

How can I become photogenic?I relly look stale when I view myself from far in the mirror.I cannot differentiate my features and it may due to my dark colour but I have my dark friends who are photogenic.This makes me feel down.

Generally photogenic means looking good when photographed. I, despite being of average attractiveness, manage to morph into some kind of manic grinning troll when photographed. This is the opposite of being photogenic. Have you considered that you may have some kind of mild dysmorphic condition? Try asking strangers on the street (or friends if you think you can trust them to be honest) what they honestly think of how you look. We are often our own worst critic. People probably don't see you in the same way that you do. Capuchin 10:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Try a different hairstyle. It can make a big difference to the way you look, and it's one of the few things you have any influence over :) --Richardrj talk email 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting question. You might do better to ask a photographer that to ask Joe Public. Or you could read how to be photogenic at Wikihow.--Shantavira|feed me 12:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've always thought attractive people are more photogenic, not only because they are good-looking , but because they like being photographed and therefore pose very naturally to a camera. It happens to me a similar thing to the one Capuchin has explained. I'm average-looking according to most sources, though, because I don't like being photographed and don't know how to maintain a natural expression to a camera, I look bad. My advice is to grab a camera (a digital one if possible) and photograph yourself many, many times or tell a friend to do so, until you feel you've done a good job. Practice makes the master. --Taraborn 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that people always look better in profesional portraits than in real life. This is because of a bunch of things, but mostly lighting and retouching. This kind of art is why photographers stay in business. However, even with amateur snap-shots you can make a huge diference just by paying attention to how much light there is, whether it's soft lighting or harsh lighting, and what direction it's coming from. The darker something is the more likely its details are going to be lost in shadow if the lighting isn't ideal. APL 14:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Although I must say, with regard to the original poster, that at one point when I had more spare time than cash and a pretty well trained dog, I explored getting him into show biz, commercials etc., for some spare change; and one agency told me that I would have a problem, since he was charcoal gray and light colors did indeed photograph better, because facial features showed up better. Just as the OP said. Gzuckier 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This question is pure trolling - see the IP's next post here. Please do not feed the trolls. 169.230.94.28 19:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Be careful - just because two anon questioners happen to have the same IP address - doesn't mean they are the same person. Dialup users get a different IP every time they log in. DHCP servers may provide a different IP each time you reboot your computer. Kids in school get to share computers with everyone else who sits in that seat in the classroom. You can't go around accusing people like that...at least not without more evidence. WHOIS says that this IP belongs to "BHARAT INSSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY."...so this could very well be a shared school account. SteveBaker 19:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course. But when a particular IP is used twice in seven minutes, after being unused for several days, there is little doubt. 71.146.160.27 22:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
In theory (but highly unlikely) that could be the irritating little brother of a worried future model (no opinion on the relevance of the question on this page). --Van helsing 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My grandmother worked in the photo retouching business back in WW2 and she said that there are many very attractive people that photograph poorly and many very average looking people that photograph beautifully. Don't worry if you aren't photogenic, it doesn't mean you aren't attractive in real life. --Candy-Panda 05:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] montgomery ward retirement fund

As a former wards employee aI would like to know where I can find out where I can apply for any benifits L am intitled to. I believe I was given an anuity with an lnsurance company but have never been contacted. This probably only a small amount but anything will help.

Their contact page is here. Sending them an email, or calling them would probably be best since they would be able to direct you to someone who would know what you have/need. Dismas|(talk) 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, if you were an employee of the Montgomery Ward that went bankrupt, and out of whose ashes has risen the current company, you may want to get in touch with the named companies on this list [1] as provided by the legal firm who administered said bankruptcy. Bielle 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)