Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 November 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous desk
< November 1 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 3 >
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] November 2

[edit] leotard

why do dancers wear leotards wont it give them a wedgie TheAnonymousGuy 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A leotard will give you a good level of flexibility, where your clothes do not get in the way. Although it is not necessarily flattering, it can help a lot. For some dancers, it is also a way to show the ways that their muscles are moving, which can contribute to a dance. Steewi 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

but whut about the wedgie thing TheAnonymousGuy 03:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the way that they move, it wouldn't surprise me if they do get a wedgie (I've never actually worn one myself). Perhaps the advantages outweigh the wedgie-factor. I've never seen a dancer stop in the middle of a performance to pull one out. Maybe a properly fitted one will stay out of such reaches. I'm out of my depth here. Steewi 06:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
My daughters performed in ballet for many years (Ages 3 to 17.) In performances, leotards are worn without panties beneath, because the panties create visible "seams." Girls big enough to have "visibility" problems sometimes wear pads of one sort or another, but wedgies were never a problem. I think that the leotards are designed with extra stretch in the critical regions. Male dancers wear codpieces, but (I think) depend on the design of the leotard to avoid wedgies.-Arch dude 06:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If you wear tights underneath that helps to distribute the load and wedgie-proof the crotch region. 62.30.217.57 09:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I am constantly amazed at the things that worry people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.229.227 (talk) 10:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just glad we were able to take a behind the scenes look and crack this pressing issue. StuRat 14:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suing the Church

Ok, this is not a legal question, I'm not intending to actually sue the Church or anything, it's just a question out of curiosity. Many countries have legislation which prevents discrimination on the grounds of gender, initially this was related to jobs (eg couldn't give one gender preference over another) but its expanded to encompass all areas where prejudice still exists (women being allowed entry into previously male only clubs for example). However, the Catholic Church retains the belief that women are inferior to men and as such cannot become priests, bishops etc. So, it is possible to sue to Church on the grounds of sexual discrimination (either for compensation or to force them to make you a priest) and if so how likely is this case to succeed? 60.228.124.127 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You really wouldnt win becuase member ship is voluntary so you dont have to stay. Also there are other places to go if you do not like it Jack The Pumpkin King 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about being a member of the Church, I'm talking about holding a position of authority in it. Also, if women can sue a male only club to gain access to it why can't they do the same for the Church (membership is voluntary in both cases after all)? As for going somewhere else, it is this attitude which spurs discrimination against oppressed groups rather than finding a solution. 121.216.152.18 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Susan Rockwell from Hanover, NH had the same idea. Rockpocket 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I doupt it. There are many mens only clubs etc that have been sued and won. A club can make what whatever rules it wants. They are hiring a bishop etc. based on his religiously appointed rank. The church itself is not hiring him. I think this is probably the main difference. This is like sueing someone for not hiring you because you do not have the right qualifications because a school rejected you. It was not the person fault it was the schools. In this case the school of the religion is not willing to teach you, but nothing is forcing them to.--Dacium 05:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
At least in the UK, big organizations like the armed forces and the church enjoy masses of legal exemptions and privileges. I'm sure the RC church has that area well covered.--Shantavira|feed me 09:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In the U.S., we have freedom of association, but it appears you are in Australia. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
In the US, freedom of religion is interpreted to mean religions can decide their own policies, and this trumps many other rights, like the right to not be discriminated against based on gender. This can even be taken to the extreme of allowing parents to kill their children, by denying them necessary medical treatment, if their religion forbids it. StuRat 14:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Attempts to do that to children in the UK results in an extremely fast legal override. Such children are made wards of the court (as the parents are not acting in the best interests of the child) and the court then consents to the treatment as the childs legal guardian. Exxolon 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You can sue for unlawful discrimination - but not all discrimination is unlawful. Before we get to churches in particular, there are some cases where discrimination is lawful (and generally perfectly reasonable), where an employer hires (or doesn't hire) selectively, based on membership of otherwise protected classes of people. Examples include:
  • if you're casting actors to perform in Othello then you can lawfully specify the lead be a black actor and the others not (in particular because race is a specific part of this play)
  • if you're hiring new WWF wrestlers you could decine to hire a quadraplegic on the basis that physical performance was an intrinsic part of the job, and no reasonable accomodation could adequately remediate that (but you probably couldn't refuse to hire a deaf wrestler, and certainly couldn't refuse to hire on the basis of race)
  • if you were hiring a stripper you can reasonably discriminate on the basis of gender and probably on age
So, in tightly controlled circumstances, it's lawful to discriminate against a member of an otherwise protected group where the matter of that discrimination is intrinsic to the job. So it is with some jobs in religious organisations - the Catholic church can reasonably argue that the person they hire to be Pope should be a Catholic - that a non-catholic wouldn't be able to command the spiritual authority needed for that position, or lead the faithful in a prayer he didn't believe in. Equally for gender, age, sexuality issues regarding the employment of a religious celebrant, a court isn't going to second-guess what a given faith thinks is appropriate. But for non religious workers in a religious organisation, where the need for someone to be in a given class isn't so obvious, a religious organisation won't have the same protections. Consider a religious camp that takes groups of teenagers and gives them a god+outdoors weekend. The counsellors who teach the bible-study class, or the family-values class, really have to be of the faith, but the people who drive the bus or make the food or do the books or maintain the facilities don't (and so that wouldn't be reasonable grounds for discrimination). Whether the person who teaches the wakeboarding classes has to be of the faith is something of a grayer area; the camp could argue that he teaches wakeboarding as part of a wider spiritual context, but that's a lot tougher to argue than for the bible-study person. So, to summarise, you can legally discriminate if you can prove that only a member of a given class will do, and that no reasonable accomodation is practical. In most jurisdictions religious groups get particularly wide latitude in determining how their faith applies to the real world (although, as noted by others above, that too has limits). The Lunchbox of Dooom 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Airlines upgrades

For those of you who have flown united. Whenever there is no business class on the aircraft you are flying on can you upgrade right to first class. I have checked UAL.com but its info is not helpful. Also a second question about the meals served. are you able to choose the type of breakfast lunch or dinner meal on board before you are served.--logger 08:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about this airline in particular, but most only offer the choice of meals for health and religious reasons. For example, you could request a sugar-free meal if you are diabetic or a vegetarian, Kosher, or Halal meal if your religion requires it. You don't have to prove your health condition or religion, they will trust you. However, these requests must be made when the ticket is purchased, as they need to put the proper number of each type of meal on the flight. Note that you don't get to specify which sugar-free meal, etc., you will get, that's still up to the airline. You may have to repeat your request for this meal when meals are served, so they will know to go fetch it. If you haven't requested a meal type at ticket purchase time, then some airlines may still give you a choice of 2 meals when you are served. I expect that first class service would provide much more choice than coach. StuRat 14:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
From the Upgrade FAQs page at united.com - What is an upgrade? -An Upgrade enables a customer to move up one class of service on a 2 or 3 cabin aircraft. Therefore, on a flight with only coach and first, an upgrade will move the passenger from coach to first. Similarly, Can I upgrade from United Economy to United First on a three cabin aircraft? - You can only upgrade one cabin: United Economy to United Business or United Business to United First, which does not explicitly speak of the two-cabin aircraft, but does allow us to infer the policy. --LarryMac | Talk 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Usually they serve special meals before normal meals so you don't need to wait as long but usually they taste worse than the normal meals they serve (the last time I tried the meal for an allergic person it tasted like... chalk. Tasteless). --antilivedT | C | G 22:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've tried kosher and vegetarian airline meals, pre-ordering them even though I have no real requirement for either. Ordering the latter does save you from the omnipresent "mystery meat". My experience was that they were better than the ordinary offerings, but that is just a very personal opinion. Frankly, I avoid eating on airplanes unless I have managed an upgrade. Bielle 01:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes they're better, sometimes not. Some airlines (particularly when they're operating from smaller locations, where catering facilities are harder to come by and they're catering to fewer people) have a cunningly designed super-meal - it's halal, it's kosher, it's low-sodium, it's vegan and vegetarian and it's wheat and nut and gluten free: it's a bowl of lettuce, some tomatoes, and a bland cracker. As with most things in economy class, you'd get better treatment if you were a sheep on the way to the abbatoir. ;( The Lunchbox of Dooom 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] league structure

pls i will be grateful if you can avail me information on the structure of the following league systems Spanish la liga,Ialian serie A,Brazil,Portuguese and British premier league. Thanks OMBA 41.219.194.37 10:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See:
La Liga
Serie A
Campeonato Brasileiro Série A and possibly Brazilian football league system
Portuguese Liga
Premier League
At the risk of sounding unhelpful, all you had to do was search the encyclopaedia for these. The Reference Desk should not, ideally, be used as a substitute for you putting a search term into the search box and pressing the Go or Search buttons. --11:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood test

In a merica do u need 2 have a blood test b4 u get married?? if so y?? is their one reason or many and y doesnt this happen in england?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is regulated by state. You do not need a blood test in Virginia. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Only eight states require a blood test.[1] It doesn't happen in England for the same reason it doesn't happen most places: nobody has ever thought it appropriate, and it would certainly be regarded as a violation of people's rights if anyone tried to introduce such a law in the UK today.--Shantavira|feed me 13:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that California is listed as "No." When did that change? My One True Ex and I were tested in 1985. (We married in haste – so that I, then *cough* between jobs, could be covered on her new job's insurance – and intended to do it on April 1, but because of the testing we missed that date.) The missus was notified of her lack of immunity to rubella (which is especially dangerous to the unborn), a point not already mentioned here. —Tamfang 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As for why it is done, it's to protect public health. It is presumed that people getting married will have sex, and that therefore if one has a contageous disease, that the other will become infected, and any children they have will also be at risk. The idea, then, is that both people should know "what they are getting into" before agreeing to marry. This concept is pretty old-fashioned, though, since these days most couples will be intimate before, or instead of, marriage. Still, the practice has some potential to protect public health, so legislators are reluctant to remove this requirement. StuRat 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Also used to determine if one or both of the marrying couple had a disease that may be passed on to their children. Dureo 12:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP

Hiya, I have a Dell LAtitude CPx laptop, It has Windows XP, and a 10gb hard drive. 9gb are filled with viruses, spyware ect. I have bought Windows 2000 (the computer is from 2000, and so I presume it will work better with this on it) I wish to Format eveything and install windows 2000. XP does not have a dosprompt to enter and say format C:\ I am unable to make it boot from the CD ect ect ect. Can any one please tell me how to do this, as if I were a 2 year old, as I know next to nothing about computers, or could some one please provide a link to show me how to do this. Thank you very much. 12.191.136.2 12:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

XP certainly does have a DOS prompt. Click start/run then type CMD and hit enter. Can you explain what happens when you try to boot from CD? By the way, you might get more responses at the Computing ref desk, however be prepared also for people to tell you to use something other than Windows. --LarryMac | Talk 13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If I try to bbot from the cd, it seems that it will, but then just loads normal Windows XP as it did before, then takes 30 min to load into windows as usual. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't recommend downgrading to Windows 2000 - stick with XP - much as I hate Windows, XP is a million times more solid than 2000. However, by all means reinstall the OS. (And, if you'd been running Linux - you wouldn't have had this problem in the first place! Serves you right! Ha!) SteveBaker 15:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speed of light

I asked a question yesterday i belive, entitled Mitcheson Morley experiment, I wish to thank you for yur respenses, they were very interesting. However it has propmpted me to ask... If we are traveling, on earth, relative to the centre of the milky way at aproxiamtley 200km/s, If we wanted to travel at very high speeds, (I realize that speed of light travel is impossible)could we not either accelerate in the opposite direction, or simple remain stationary, relative to the speed of our solar system, thereby allowing the sun and its affiliates to speed away from us rather than us from it? I realize this question may be totally unrational, but not having anysort of physics qualifications, I would appreciate it if some one would tell me this and why, ar commend me on my good Idea and affirm the possitive. lol thanks, oh and as a P.S I wish to appologise for the grammer in the above question entitled Bolld tests wich was writen by my college who sits next to me, I have tried to correct him but to no avail. lol 12.191.136.2:-) —Preceding comment was added at 12:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that we may be moving at 200km/s relative to the centre of the milky way has no relevance to questions about how we might achieve high speeds relative to the earth. Put another couple of ways a) we're already moving at 200km/s (relative to a certain frame of reference), why would we want to go faster; b) if we did want to go at, say 200km/s relative to the earth, then we would have to get off the earth, as a normal space flight does, and then accelerate away from the earth. The fact that the earth is moving relative to the centre of the milky way provides no help whatsoever to the spacecraft, since its initial frame of reference is the earth. Something like that. An analogy would be, you would get no particular result if, whilst walking through a train that was travelling (relative to the train track) at 70mph, you decided to "stand still" relative to the tracks. Whilst in the train, you simply do not have that option available to you. Similarly, you do not have the option to "stop still" in relation to the centre of the milky way so as to achieve high speeds. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
to use your analogy I was thinking more of being on a moving train, and then climbing off the train to watch it speed away thus getting ones self miles from the train without having to move ones self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Trains are a traditional analogy for this sort of conversation. You do have the ability to climb off the train. You lose your speed relative to the train as you crash into the ballast (splintering your own poor mortal human frame, if the train was going at any significant speed relative to the track)...the potential energy which you had as you leapt from the train is expended as kinetic energy in that shattering collision with mother earth. The same option is not open to you in terms of leaping off the earth: there is no ballast in space. You can get off the earth, just as you can leap off the train, but what is out there there to slow you down to the zero speed of your centre of the milky way reference point? Nothing. And that's the point at which the idea fails; you retain the potential energy you possess (relative to the centre of the milky way), because there's no means by which you can translate it into kinetic energy. At this point, check out Newton's laws of motion, particularly the first, which says makes the essential point: an object that is in motion will not change its velocity (accelerate or decelerate) until a net force acts upon it. No net force. no change in velocity. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is the exact same problem we had in answering your previous question. You don't understand (or have not yet internalized) the idea that there is no absolute 'thing' that you can measure your position relative to. There is really no meaning to being "stationary". In your thought experiment, you are SIMULTANEOUSLY stationary with respect to the center of the MilkyWay AND moving at 200km/s relative to the sun AND moving at 130km/s (or whatever it is) relative to the earth AND moving 110km/s (or whatever) relative to the launchpad of your rocketship on the surface of the spinning earth. The amount of energy it takes to get to (and maintain) this zero motion with respect to the center of the galaxy is the sum of the energy it takes to get out of the earth's gravitational field plus the energy to get away from the sun's gravity plus...all the other planets and moons and so on...plus the energy required to prevent you falling towards the center of the milkyway because of IT'S gravity. Of those things, getting away from the Earth is certainly the biggest problem - so pretty much the energy cost to do this is whatever it takes to leave earth. SteveBaker 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iran

what is the religious and personal level of freedom in iran? i have heard people are publicly executed and women are lashed if they dont wear islamic dress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.4.231 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See Human rights in Iran for an overview. - Eron Talk 13:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps of interest: here is the first third of a fascinating short documentary of a young Yemeni tomboy who declines to wear traditional dress and behave "appropriately". You can get the whole thing from Wholphin. It's very interesting to see how the social pressure to conform actually works, rather than reading about it in the news. One fascinating part is where the kids are teasing her about not wearing the hijab, and the local imam tells them to leave her alone, and that she can wear what she wants. --Sean 15:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Ernst Chladni's picture here accurate?

Here is another: [2] for comparison.--Filll 15:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably, according to this site. I'm going to presume athe pictures were at different ages. Maximus Rex, the user who submitted the image stopped contributing in 2004, and provided no source data. (A question about this might be better asked on the article talk page (though I;d agree in advance that such an approach, for an obscure individual, oftimes gets no response. The helpdesk might be a better place than the RD.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it a bit, I decided that one was from a much younger age than the other two pictures. I have linked the other two pictures into the article.--Filll 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What model of car is this?

Came across this in Beijing when recently traveling in China. I thought it might be a Suzuki or Daihatsu, but don't recognize the manufacturer's insignia. I don't remember what the model name on the rear was. BrokenSphereMsg me 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a Smart Car but none of the images here or on smart.com show the insignia well enough to tell. Dismas|(talk) 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Smart logo
Smart logo
Smartcars are C>, as shown here [3]. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this it? They talk about it here. --Milkbreath 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this a self made image?Do you fell like releasing it for use on the Commons.KTo288 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to match up the logo on the front, but the headlights, grill, door trim match up. Thanks. BrokenSphereMsg me 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a Renault badge on the nose? —Tamfang 02:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out this cool site for a sample of 111 car manufacturer logos :-) Plasticup T/C 01:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is travel insurance discriminatory??

First off, this is neither a medically nor age-related, nor legally inspired question - it aims merely to seek sincere and objective opinion from informed Wiki users. My wife and I are British, retired civil and public servants, in our late 50s/early 60s, and have a range of previously diagnosed medical conditions, all fully stabilised and medically supervised and treated with regular drugs - I have raised Blood Pressure and raised cholesterol levels, and my wife has osteo and rheumatoid arthritis, fully stabilised, and a slight case of asthma, treated when necessary by a steroid inhaler with NO use of home oxygen. We have always travelled widely but more so since we retired a couple of years ago, and have always purchased a worldwide annual multi-trip travel insurance policy for around £150 per annum, equal to around $300. Last week, our insurer changed their policy conditions to exclude all the above conditions with no opportunity for us to pay increased premiums - but they also excluded people with Gout, Asthma, Reflux, Deafness, Blindness, Migraine, Common Cold, Influenza, irrespective of whether they were taking previously prescribed drugs or not - seriously. So for the first time in years I was obliged to seek out another insurer and oh boy - what a shock we got with some of the responses. We have so far tried about 6 alternative insurers ranging from Bank, Post Office, Supermarket, Internet and Travel Agency Insurance companies. The results range from £585 per annum, to one exception at £126 (cheaper than at present) - but what shocked me more was the forensic level of questionning. Some companies dismissively rejected us when we mentioned Blood Pressure and Arthritis whilst other companies shrugged and said they were happy to accept those well-managed risks. But it was clear to me that whilst insurance companies are entitled to operate as they choose in a free market, their underwriting policies and questions-and-answer-weighting bore no resemblance to each other - but ALL of them had one condition in common - travel to the USA with a medical condition no matter how slight - and expect any policy to be heavily weighted and thus extortionately and excessively expensive. So my question based on this long background, for which please accept my apologies, is twofold - are travel insurance policies designed to rule out ALL risks in most cases, and secondly, given that they seem so designed in my recent experience, what proportion of travellers with known medical conditions take the risk of travelling with insufficient cover at the risk of having any subsequent claims denied? Thanks for any useful and helpful response. And a few references to fair and reasonable travel insurance companies wuld be appreciated too. 81.145.242.113 17:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I had similar problems, but SAGA obliged, give them a try if you have not already done so.--88.109.95.158 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the UK, but when I was a US citizen living in Canada, and wanted to visit the US, I was able to obtain travel insurance at quite reasonable rates from either Blue Cross or Allstate, and I do not recall having to answer questions about known medical conditions. I think the theory was that only urgent care would be provided in the US, and for anything major I would be "repatriated" to Canada and become OHIP's problem. --Trovatore 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the major factors in the cost of any health insurance, including travel insurance, is the age of the purchaser. Once you or your partner hits 60, there is a big increase in premium cost and then an even bigger one at 65. Like Trovatore, I have never been asked any health questions in respect of travel insurance, but I do know that any pre-existing condition is excluded. An example of cost: for a 10-day trip in September 2007, with all the time being spent in Canada and the U.S., for two people, one of whom is 66, was $US477.00. 81.109 . . ., I think you are getting off lightly! :-) Bielle 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the insurance companies need to operate at a profit, so they need to manage risk. They aren't going to rule out all risk because in a competitive market there will be those willing to take on risk to win customers. Generally the more questions you answer (that is answer no) the cheaper the insurance will be because it can eliminate you from more of the scenarios. The 'simple' cover policies tend to be less competitively priced or have a more aggressive underwriting policy to attract customers. There will be millions of people who travel each year without health-insurance (the gap in life-insurance is enormous too). None of this alters that yes the insurance firms squabble more for the 'healthy' 'low risk' customers than the ones that might cause claims (this much is pretty logical) but I understand they have regulations/rules requiring that they accept a certain amount of the population to ensure that they provide a reasonable base of cover. Basically they have a requirement to offer insurance to most, but they can justify excluding certain people. To advertise a price the firm needs to be able to confirm that a specified % of clients would reasonably be expected to be accepted at that price. ny156uk 23:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not discrimination because they are letting you buy the product. Discrimination would be not letting you buy a certain insurance but letting someone else buy it. They can choose to mold their product anyway they see fit, as long as they sell it to everyone. They could for example say on claims for anyone who is male, and it still wouldn't be discrimination because you still have the choice to buy it or not. Discrimination would be saying no you can't buy it because your male. I don't see why you think a paying a high price of having a medical condition is extortionate, and you would be extremely hard pressed to prove the price is excessive. Just going ot the hospital in America (that has no public system) is going to cost you thousands at a minimum just over the tiniest little thing. If you are hospitalized for a few days the costs would be in excess of $10,000 USD easily. How much higher is the insurance? I would expect a 1 month trip old age with medical conditions to cost around $2,000--Dacium 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best med Schools

Where (which universities) are the top 5 US medical schools/programs located? As well, which of the Ivy Leagues are generally considered "best"? Acceptable 18:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report, which regularly publishes America's Best Colleges rankings, here ranks the following for Medical research: Harvard, Johns Hopkins, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University in St. Louis, and University of California, San Francisco.
For Primary Care, they here rank the following top 5: University of Washington, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Oregon Health and Science University, and Michigan State University College ohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_%28medicine%29

Residency (medicine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaf Osteopathic Medicine.
As for the "best" Ivy League schools, I would say it varies depending on your major or program, though I'm biased since my kid sister is in Med School at Harvard (which we can see above is pretty decent.)
A topic for another day entirely is whether college and university rankings are counter-productive to students making choices based on which school is best suited for them. jeffjon 20:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Should one wish to become a surgeon, that would fall under Primary Care right? Acceptable 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Not according to Primary care. Bielle 00:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't train to be a surgeon at medical school, you train to be a physician. Following graduation you can then train do be a surgeon during your residency. So, if you wish to get the best surgical training, you should identify the best surgical residency and attempt to get "matched" there by the National Resident Matching Program. The "better" your medical school, then better your chance at getting matched. But how you rank which school is best for getting you the best surgical residency depends on a number of factors. If you go for a school that performs well on most ranking system you won't go too far wrong. The thing to remember is that the cream generally rises to the top, the most important factor in success is you. If you are cut out to be a good surgeon then whether you are at Yale of Harvard will probably not be the deciding factor on whether you end up in a good or bad residency. More info here Rockpocket 01:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How do Canadian medical programs such as Queen's University Med school and University of Toronto med school compare with their American counterparts? Acceptable 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say Yale, but I may be a little biased ;-) Plasticup T/C 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cracking voices

Can a woman's voice crack? --Taraborn 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure it happens all the time, if you mean crack as in "to change rapidly in register", as when crying or sick. If you mean can her voice "break", as in "permanently assume a lower register", as often happens to teenage boys, then I don't know, but I imagine the sorts of hormonal things that cause some women to grow beards could certainly affect the voice. --Sean 20:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Girls' voices certainly deepen during their teens, both singing and speaking. There isn't usually that rapid growth of the larynx which sends a young man's voice into chaos, though.SaundersW 20:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, see The Female Changing Voice, for example. Many women and girls have voices that slip, rasp, and crack on occasion. For singers such as Anita O'Day it became a trademark of their art. Yodeling, which also involves abrupt changes, breaking from one register to another, isn't limited to males either. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all. --Taraborn 12:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cars,makes or models past or present

Greek goddess (5 letters) Supply with needs (6 letters) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.183.161 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Citroen Diane? (I know she was Roman, and that it's a French rendering of the name!) SaundersW 22:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK Astra wasn't the name of a Greek Goddess. Astraeus (or Zeus) had a daughter called Astraea, and there was an altogether different Goddess called Asteria. But no Astra. Still, I bet that is the answer you are looking for. Rockpocket 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Bond Equipe 86.21.74.40 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Greek mythological figures looks like a good starting point - but it turns up Dione as the only goddess with a 5 letter name. But I don't see a car relationship - and Mitsubishi Dion (which was named after Dionysus not Dione) doesn't fit the number of letters - or the other clue "Supply with needs (6 letters)". SteveBaker 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is the name of the Goddess that is required to have the stated number of letters, not the car. Bond Equipe has 6, but the word meaning Supply with needs, equip, does not. Same principle with Dione and Dion. Rockpocket 00:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question about ballet

hello do girls in ballet ever pick on males because it's a girl thing? thanks --BalletGuy 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite probably, such things tend to be female dominated. See our article about the movie Billy Elliot which is all about a boy who is into ballet. GaryReggae 23:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

like do they give wedgies and stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalletGuy (talk • contribs) 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Likely not; they are girls after all. Biggest issue would probably be them fighting over who gets to be your partner. =] HYENASTE 23:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Girl bullies do exist, but they’re a lot less common than boy bullies. I think a ballet class would be a rather safe place for you. If you’re straight, I think the girls will be competing for your attention. And if you’re gay, I think the girls will be a lot more accepting of that than would be a bunch of boys that you might otherwise be around if you were instead doing more traditional "boy activities". I think whatever bullying you might encounter due to doing ballet would be much more likely to come from any boy classmates who find out that you’re taking ballet, rather than from the girls in the ballet class. MrRedact 01:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In ballet class you're far too busy concentrating on the steps to worry about vieing for attention. That doesn't mean ballet classes are unsocialable places, in fact quite the opposite. We share a common bond, a love of ballet. On the rare occaisions other men take class, it's all boys together. Men have their own steps and the women teachers can't really demonstrate them, so we have to learn from each other. Mens and womens bodies behave differently on the dance floor; each gender has it's own set of problems. At the leisure centre where I attend class, the verbal abuse comes from the other users, mostly the footballers. "Backs to the wall" is something that they say me quite often. I usually shut them up when I point out that I'm the only bloke in a room full of scantily clad and very attractive women, and it's not me that gets in the bath with a bunch of other blokes - "Where's the soap!". Actually they don't give me too much grief; I lift weights three times a week and take ballet class twice, so I am very fit (and it shows!)--TrogWoolley 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your scaring me Jack The Pumpkin King 00:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from experience from when I was a child and the only guy in class (for the 10+ years I took dance), normally older girls (12 and up) embrace the fact that there is a boy in class and teachers use that to their advantage. Younger girls sometimes shy away (as they would in school normally) ad play the [cooties] game or other things. It's not bad at all. The only bad part is when kids outside of the ballet class, that's when the teasing usually begins. Hope that helps! Josborne2382 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulties in moving to Kenya?

How simple or difficult would it be for the an American to establish a permanent residence in Kenya? Assume no criminal records, but also no diplomatic or religious reasons for going. Also would like to append that the residence would be in a secure area, that the person can already speak the local languages, and that the person would need a job (not some millionaire retiring to see the zebras). HYENASTE 23:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all you would have to find a job in Kenya. How difficult that is depends on your skill set and experience. Then your new employer would have to apply for an Entry Work Permit (from the Principal Immigration Officer, P.O Box 30191, Nairobi) and demonstrate that a Kenyan could not do the job you are doing, or that they attempted to recruit a Kenyan, but no-one suitable applied. After that, its pretty simple. You apply for a visa (not a problem in you are an American and have a work permit), jump on a plane and, when you arrive, rent yourself a house. Of course, how secure and comfortable your residence would be would entirely depend on how much you were paid for your new job. The only other way of getting into Kenya permanently is to show you have sufficient funds to start your own business there or you have sufficient income to live there without working. [4] Rockpocket 00:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Illegal immigration? :) --ffroth 06:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm planning on doing this some day(to Scotland, not Kenya :P), hopefully before the wife and kids thing, I have a good paying job, and lots of friends, but I was born in the hospital here, and have lived here all my life(25 years) depresses me sometimes lol. The steps seem the same most everywhere, hardest for me to figure out was why the apts in Scotland were so cheap, and I dun mean with currency exchange, I figured out they charge by the week and not the month. So check all your bases before you go, and everything should work out.Dureo 12:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Step one will be to phone the Kenyan embassy and find out what their rules for visas, residency and work permits are for whatever citizenship you currently hold. Some countries have rules about foreigners not being allowed to own property that may make this harder - I don't recall whether Kenya is one of them - but you'll want to check that. If you seriously plan to do this, I'd recommend somewhere around Nairobi - while it's close to the equator, it's altitude keeps the climate fairly pleasant for most of the year and it's really the only city of any size that can provide the necessities of life. (I spent two years in Kenya was a teenager - we rented an apartment in Nairobi). SteveBaker 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)